International Critical Commentary

6:1 ff. The incident of the Feeding of the Five Thousand is the only one in the public ministry of Jesus before the last visit to Jerusalem which is found in all four Gospels; Mk., Mt., and Jn. (but not Luke) adding an account of the Storm on the Lake. The Synoptists (Mk. 6:31f., Mt. 14:13f., Lk. 9:10f.) agree in placing the miraculous feeding after the return of the Twelve from their mission, and after the beheading of John the Baptist. The labours which the apostles had undertaken made a period of rest desirable (Mk. 6:31); and also it was but prudent to go into retirement for a time, as Herod’s suspicions had been aroused, and he was desirous of seeing Jesus (Lk. 9:9). The setting of the miracle in Jn. is not inconsistent with these somewhat vague indications of the period in the ministry of Jesus at which it was wrought.

Reasons have been given already for the conclusion (see Introd., p. xvii) that cc. 5 and 6 have been transposed, so that in the original draft of Jn., c. 6 followed directly after c. 4. At the end of c. 4 Jesus and His disciples are at Cana, and we now find them crossing the Sea of Galilee to its north-eastern side. They probably followed the road familiar to them (2:12), and went down from Cana to Capernaum, where they had their heavy¹ fishing-boat (τὸ πλοῖον, Mk. 6:32). Mk. (followed by Mt.) says that the place to which they went by boat was “a desert place,” as Jesus wished to retire for a time from public view, but that the crowd followed them by road, evidently being able to observe the course the boat was taking, and arrived before them (Mk. 6:32, 33). Jn. rather implies that Jesus and His disciples arrived first (6:3). Lk. (9:10) gives the name of the place as Bethsaida, by which he must mean Bethsaida Julias (et Tell) at the extreme north end of the lake, on the eastern side, for no other Bethsaida is known.² These data are all fairly consistent with each other, if we suppose that the place was the little plain on the north-eastern shore (about a mile south of Bethsaida Julias) which is now called el-Batîhah. This was grazing ground, and there would be abundance of grass there at the Passover season (cf. 6:4, 10, Mk. 6:39).³ A hill (6:3) rises up behind it. This plain is about 4 miles by boat from Tell Hûm (the most probable site of Capernaum; see on 2:12), and perhaps 9 miles from it by following the path along the western shore and crossing the fords of Jordan, where it flows into the lake from the north. It was the latter route that the crowds took who followed Jesus. See further 6:15f.

ἡ θάλασσα τῆς Γαλιλαίας is the name given in Mt. and Mk. to the lake called in the O.T. the “Sea of Chinnereth” (Num. 34:11, etc.). It is called ἡ λίμνη Γεννησαρέτ in Lk. 5:1, and ἡ θάλασσα τῆς Τιβεριάδος Jn. 21:1. Tiberias was a town on the western shore, founded a.d. 22 by Herod Antipas, and named after Tiberius, which shows that the designation “the Sea of Tiberias” could hardly have been current during our Lord’s ministry.¹ Accordingly the double designation found here, τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Γαλιλαίας τῆς Τιβεριάδος, shows the use of the contemporary name “the Sea of Galilee,” followed by the explanatory gloss “that is, of Tiberias,” added to identify the lake for Greek readers at the end of the first century. If we ascribe τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Γαλιλαίας to the aged apostle, John the son of Zebedee, when telling his reminiscences, the addition τῆς Τιβεριάδος would naturally be made by the evangelist, whom we call Jn. Cf. v. 23 for the town of Tiberias.

2. ἠκολούθει δέ. So א B D L N W. But the rec. καὶ ἠκολούθει (AΓ Δ Θ) is quite in Jn.’s manner, who often uses καὶ for δέ (see below, v. 21).

“A great crowd was following Him” (cf. Mt. 14:13, Lk. 9:11; and see Mk. 6:33), i.e. not only did they follow Him now, when He wished to be in retirement, but they had been following Him about before He crossed the lake; ἠκολούθει is the impft. of continued action. Their reason was “because they were noticing the signs that He was doing on the sick.” ἐθεώρουν (B D L NΘ) is the better reading, as preserving the idea that they had been continually observing His powers of healing (for θεωρεῖν in a like context, Cf. 2:23), but א Γ Δ have ἑώρων. W has θεωροῦντες.

As Jn. represents the matter, it was previous works of healing that had attracted the attention of the crowds; e.g., presumably, the cure of the nobleman’s son, which has just been narrated (4:46ff.). Cf. also the works of healing narrated in Mk. 1:29, 32, 40, 2:1, 3:1, 6:5, but not described by Jn. Mt. 14:14 and Lk. 9:11, however, record that Jesus began the day on this occasion by healing the sick. This is not mentioned by Mk. On the other hand, Mk. 6:34 (followed by Lk. 9:11, but not by Mt.) says that the earlier part of the day was spent in teaching the people; but neither for this nor for works of healing is there room in the Johannine narrative (see below on v. 5). Jn. seems to know the Marcan story (see on v. 7), but he corrects it as he proceeds. See Introd., p. xcvii.

3. ἀνῆλθεν δὲ εἰς τὸ ὄρος Ἰη., “Jesus went up to the hill,” i.e. the hill rising out of the little plain by the shore. Mk. (6:46), followed by Mt., mentions the hill after his narrative of the miracle; but Mt. (15:29), in telling what preceded the parallel miracle of the Feeding of the Four Thousand, says, as Jn. does here, ἀναβὰς εἰς τὸ ὄρος ἐκάθητο ἐκεῖ. Perhaps Jn. has borrowed here from Mt., but this is unlikely.¹

It was the habit of Jesus to sit when He taught, as the Rabbis were accustomed to do (cf. Mk. 4:1, 9:35, Mt. 26:55, Lk. 4:20, 5:3 [Jn.] 8:2); and He was wont to go up to the hills, whether for teaching (Mt. 5:1, 24:3) or for prayer (Mk. 6:46, Lk. 6:12, 9:28).

The verb ἀνέρχομαι occurs again in N.T. only at Gal. 1:18; and give א*D give ἀπῆλθεν here.

This narrative represents Jesus and His disciples as having arrived at the eastern side of the lake before the crowd, who according to Mk. (6:33) had arrived there first. According to Mk. 6:30, Lk. 9:10, the disciples who were with Jesus were the “apostles”; and this is implied in Jn.’s narrative, though not explicitly stated, for the twelve baskets of fragments of v. 13 indicate that the number of disciples present was twelve. See on 2:2.

4. It has been pointed out² that, although τὸ πάσχα is read here by all MSS. and vss., yet there are patristic comments on the verse which suggest that some early writers did not treat “the feast” of 6:4 as a Passover, and that therefore the texts before them did not include the words τὸ πάσχα at this point. Thus Irenæus (Hær. II. xxii. 3) is silent as to this Passover, although it would have been apposite to his argument to use it.³ If τὸ πάσχα were omitted here, it would be natural to identify the feast of this verse with the Feast of Tabernacles noted in 7:2. Having regard to the importance of the σκηνοπηγία, it might properly be described as pre-eminently ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων (see on 7:2). But it would be precarious to omit words so fully attested as τὸ πάσχα,¹ and on the hypothesis, which has been adopted in this Commentary, that c. 5 comes after c. 6 (see Introd., p. xviii), all is clear. The Passover mentioned here as “near” is the feast whose celebration is narrated in 5:1; i.e. it was the second Passover of the public ministry of Jesus (that mentioned in 2:13 being the first), and was probably the Passover of the year 28 a.d.

It has been suggested that this note about the approaching Passover was introduced into the narrative to explain the large concourse of persons who were present on the occasion of the miracle, and who are supposed to have been thronging the roads on the way to Jerusalem for the observance of the feast. But the north-eastern corner of the lake is hardly a point at which we should expect to find thousands of such travellers. Jn. is fond of introducing notes of time into his narrative (see p. cii), and he has similar notes about approaching festivals at 2:13, 7:2, 11:55. ἐγγύς is a favourite word with him, both in relation to time and to distance.

5. ἐπάρας οὖν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὁ Ἰη. For this phrase, see on 4:35, where, as here, it is followed by the verb θεᾶσθαι. It is used again of Jesus at 17:1; cf. also 11:41 and Lk. 6:20. For θεᾶσθαι see on 1:14.

πολὺς ὄχλος, i.e. apparently the ὄχλος πολύς of v. 2 (see on 12:9), who had followed Jesus and His disciples round the head of the lake. But, no doubt, once it was known where He was, people would flock to the place from the neighbouring villages to see and hear Him. According to the Synoptists (see on v. 2), the crowd came upon Jesus early in the morning, and the day was spent teaching or healing their sick. Then, towards evening, the disciples suggest that the people should be sent away that they might buy food for themselves. Jn. tells nothing of teaching or healing on this occasion, and he represents Jesus as having foreseen, as soon as the crowd began to gather, the difficulty that would arise about food. When He saw the great multitude coming, He asked Philip, “Whence are we to buy loaves?”

It is to be observed that in the narratives of the Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mk. 8:4, Mt. 15:33), although not in the parallel narratives of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, the disciples put this question (πόθεν) to Jesus. The question is the same as that which Moses puts to Yahweh (Num. 11:13), πόθεν μοι κρέα δοῦναι παντὶ τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ; and the misgivings of Moses, when he reflects that he had 600,000 footmen to feed, are expressed in terms not unlike those which Philip uses here, πᾶν τὸ ὄψος τῆς θαλάσσης συναχθήσεται αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀρκέσει αὐτοῖς; (Num. 11:22).

Another O.T. parallel may be found in 2 Kings 4:42f., where Elisha’s servant exclaims at the impossibility of feeding a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and ears of corn “in his sack” (εἴκοσι ἄρτους κριθίνους καὶ παλάθας, i.e. cakes). The narrative relates that Elisha said, Δὸς τῷ λαῷ καὶ ἐσθιέτωσαν, declaring that Yahweh had told him there would be enough and to spare. And so it was: ἔφαγον καὶ κατέλιπον. This is a story which bears a likeness to the Feedings of the Multitudes in the Gospels, in detail much more striking than the story of the miraculous increase of meal and oil by Elijah’s intervention (1 Kings 17:16). See Introd., p. clxxxi.

However, in Jn.’s narrative the question (πόθεν) is a question put by Jesus Himself to Philip. Philip was of Bethsaida (1:44), and presumably he knew the neighbourhood; he was thus the natural person of whom to ask where bread could be bought. This is one of those reminiscences which suggest the testimony of an eye-witness. The Synoptists, in their accounts of the wonderful Feedings of the Multitudes, do not name individual disciples; but Jn. names both Philip and Andrew, and their figures emerge from his narrative as those of real persons, each with his own characteristics. See below on v. 8.

For ἀγοράσωμεν (א A B D N W Θ), the rec. has ἀγοράσομεν.

6. τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν πειράζων αὐτόν κτλ. We have seen already (cf. Introd., p. xxxiv) that Jn. is apt to comment on the words of Jesus and offer explanations of them. The comment at this point is probably due to a misunderstanding (as at 2:21). Jn. thinks it necessary to explain why Jesus asked Philip where bread could be bought, because he hesitates to represent Him as asking a question which would suggest His ignorance of the answer. But the true humanity of Jesus is not realised, if it is assumed that He never asked questions about the simple matters of every day.

Jn. does not write thus of Jesus elsewhere. On His way to the tomb of Lazarus, Jesus asks where it is (11:34). When He saw the fishing-boat on the lake, He asked them if they had caught any fish (21:5, where, however, He may be represented as knowing that nothing had been caught). It is by a like mistaken idea of reverence that the later Synoptists often omit questions which Mk. represents Jesus as asking, e.g.: “Who touched my garments?” (Mk. 5:30, Lk. 8:45, omitted by Mt.). “Seest thou aught?” addressed to the blind man who was healed by stages, is found only in Mk. 8:23. “How long time is it since this hath come to him?” asked of the epileptic boy’s father (Mk. 9:21, is omitted by Mt. and Lk.

The simple question, “Where can bread be bought?” asked by Jesus of a disciple who was familiar with the locality, needs not to be explained or explained away.

πειράζειν does not occur again in Jn., but that by itself does not prove the verse to be a later gloss, although it raises the question if it may not have been added after Jn. had completed his work.

7. διακοσίων δηναρίων ἄρτοι οὐκ ἀρκοῦσιν κτλ. There is no mention of the “two hundred pennyworth” in Mt. or Lk., but Mk. 6:37 makes the disciples say ἀγοράσωμεν δηναρίων διακοσίων ἄρτους; It is probable that Jn. is recalling the phraseology of Mk. at this point, although it is possible that two distinct traditions, that which came through Peter and that which came through John the son of Zebedee, have independently preserved the same remark made by disciples. Jn. several times betrays a knowledge of the Marcan narrative, which he corrects where necessary.¹

A denarius was the ordinary day’s wage of a labourer (cf. Mt. 20:2). Even if the disciples had as much as two hundred denarii in their common purse (13:29), which is improbable, Philip points out that they would not purchase enough bread to feed five thousand people, nor would it be easy to find so much bread in the vicinity without notice.

There is a reminiscence of the phrase ἵνα ἕκαστος βραχύ τι λάβῃ in a passage quoted below (v. 11) from the second-century Acts of John.

8. εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ. This description of an apostle is not found in the Synoptists (except at Mk. 13:1, without ἐκ); but Jn. has it again at 12:4, 13:23; cf. 18:17, 25. For the constr. εἷς ἐκ followed by a gen. plur., see on 1:40.

For the designation of Andrew as “Simon Peter’s brother,” see on 1:40. His first impulse of discipleship was to find Peter and bring him to Jesus (1:41). He appears here as a resourceful person who tries to find a practical answer to the question put to Philip by Jesus, although he does not think that he has been successful in gathering a sufficient supply of food. In 12:20–22 Philip and Andrew are again associated in somewhat similar fashion, Philip not knowing what to do until he has consulted Andrew. These notices in Jn. supply the only indications of Andrew’s character that we have, and it is interesting to observe their consistency with each other. The only distinctive mention of Andrew in the Synoptists is at Mk. 13:3, where he appears as associated with the inner circle of the Twelve—Peter, James, and John.

A second-century notice of Andrew and Philip shows that they were held to be among the leaders of the Twelve. When Papias collected traditions from the elders of his day, he used to ask them, “What did Andrew and what did Peter say? Or what did Philip? Or what Thomas or James or John or Matthew?” (Eus. H.E. iii. 39. 4), placing them respectively first and third of the apostles whom he names.

In the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, Andrew is specially associated with the writing of the Fourth Gospel: “eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis ut, recognoscentibus cunctis, Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret”; and it is possible that his intimacy with John the son of Zebedee was handed down by tradition, although it cannot be held that he lived until the Gospel was published (see Introd., p. lvi).

9. In the Synoptists the five loaves and two fishes are the provision which the disciples had for their own use. In Jn., Andrew reports that a lad was present who had this food with him, possibly having brought it from a neighbouring village, for Jesus and the Twelve.

παιδάριον. There is no mention of this lad in the Synoptists; see above. The word παιδάριον does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., but it is frequent in the LXX; and it must be noted that it is the word used of Elisha’s servant (2 Kings 4:38, 43) in the passage immediately preceding the story of Elisha’s multiplication of the loaves (see above on v. 5).

The rec. has παιδάριον ἕν (AΓ Δ Θ); א B D L N W om. ἕν. The Synoptists sometimes use εἷς or ἕν, as a kind of indefinite article, for τις or τι (cf. Mt. 8:19, 26:69); but this is not the style of Jn. (cf., however, 11:49, 19:34).

κριθίνους. It is only Jn. who tells that the loaves were of barley. Barley bread, being cheaper than wheaten, was the common food of the poor; cf. Judg. 7:13 and Ezek. 13:19. Reference has already been made to ἄρτους κριθίνους in the Elisha story (2 Kings 4:42).

δύο ὀψάρια. The Synoptists say δύο ἰχθύας; and Mt. and Mk. in the parallel narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand say ὀλίγα ἰχθύδια.

The word ὀψάριον (only found here and at 21:9, 10, 13 in the Greek Bible) is a dim. of ὄψον, which originally meant “cooked food,” and thence came to be used of any relish taken with food; e.g. in Pap. Fay. 119:31 εἰς τὰ γενέσια Γεμέλλης πέμψις ὠψάρια,¹ the ὀψάρια were delicacies for a birthday feast. Thus ὀψάρια in the present passage stands for dried or pickled fish. The curing of fish was an important industry on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and is alluded to as such by Strabo.² Neither in Jn. nor in the Synoptic narrative is there any mention of lighting a fire and cooking fish on the occasion of the miracle; and it is not to be supposed that the meal was of raw, fresh fish and bread. See, however, on 21:10.

10. ποιήσατε (for the aor. imper., see on 2:5) τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀναπεσεῖν … ἀνέπεσαν οὖν οἱ ἄνδρες. The R.V. distinguishes ἀνθρώπους from ἄνδρες: “make the people sit down … so the men sat down,” suggesting that the women (or children), if present, remained standing. But no such discrimination is indicated in the Synoptic accounts, and it would, in the circumstances, be improbable, despite the Oriental subordination of women: ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς ἀνακλιθῆναι πάντας is Mk’s statement. ἀνήρ is an infrequent word in Jn., occurring again only 1:13, 30 and 4:16, 17, 18 (of a husband); and it may be that its introduction here is due to a reminiscence of Mk.’s πεντασχίλιοι ἄνδρες, to which Mt. afterwards added the gloss χωρὶς γυναικῶν καὶ παιδίων, as he did also in the parallel narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mt. 14:21, 15:38). Jn. returns to the word ἄνθρωποι at v. 14.

ἀναπίπτειν is “to lie back” or “recline,” whether on the sloping hillside (as here) or on a couch (as at the Last Supper, 13:12, 21:20). Mk. uses ἀναπίπτειν as well as ἀνακλίνειν in his parallel narrative; Mt. has ἀνακλίνειν only, and Lk. κατακλίνειν.

χόρτος πολύς, “there was much grass”—green grass, Mk. says—it being spring-time, after the rainy season, just before the Passover (v. 4). Jn. does not mention the greenness of the grass, nor does he say anything about the people being distributed into groups or companies.

11. ἔλαβεν οὖν τοὺς ἄρτους. Jesus took the loaves, and blessing them, caused them to be distributed, thus acting as host.

It is remarkable, and probably significant, that Jn., alone of the evangelists, does not say that the loaves were broken by Jesus, as well as blessed. In all the narratives descriptive of the Feedings of the Multitudes, except this, we have ἄρτους ἔκλασεν or κατέκλασεν τοὺς ἄρτους, or the like. Jn. never uses the verb κλάω or κατακλάω. Now, in all the accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, that Jesus “brake the Bread” is explicitly mentioned, ἔκλασεν ἄρτον, only one loaf being used. The rite itself is called in Acts 2:42 ἡ κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου (cf. Acts 20:7, and perhaps Acts 27:35), so essential a feature was the breaking of the one loaf deemed to be. Thus, in this particular, the Johannine narrative of the Feeding of the Five Thousand is less suggestive of the action of Jesus at the Last Supper than are the Synoptic narratives of the same miracle. By the omission of ἄρτους ἔκλασεν Jn. has deviated from the Synoptic tradition in a fashion which suggests that he did not regard the miraculous meal, which he describes, as anticipatory of the sacrament with which he was familiar, although he does not tell of its institution. The discourse which follows (cf. esp. vv. 52–56) cannot be interpreted without including a sacramental reference; but it would seem, nevertheless, that Jn. wishes to avoid suggesting that the miraculous feeding was a sacramental meal.

It is just possible, although unlikely, that Jn. omits all mention of the breaking of the bread, not because he did not regard the meal as sacramental, but because he lays stress on the circumstance (19:33) that the Body of Christ was not broken on the Cross.

We must also note that Jn. omits the words, ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν before the blessing of the loaves, which are common to all three Synoptists. This “lifting up of the eyes” was a very ancient feature of the Eucharistic rite, and we cannot be sure how far back it goes (cf. 11:41, 17:1, and see on 4:35).

In another detail, per contra, Jn.’s narrative of the Feeding of the Five Thousand suggests the Last Supper more clearly than the Synoptists do. In Jn., it is Jesus Himself who distributes the loaves to the multitudes, διέδωκεν τοῖς ἀνακειμένοις, just as He distributed the Bread to His disciples on the eve of His Passion (cf. also 21:13); but in the Synoptists, it is the Twelve who, acting under His direction, bring the loaves round, which probably was what actually took place. Jn.’s διέδωκεν, however, need not be taken as excluding the assistance of the Twelve in the distribution, although this is not explicitly mentioned. Qui facit per alium, facit per se.

The rec. text inserts after διέδωκεν the words τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταί (so א^cD Γ Δ Θ), but this is a harmonising gloss introduced from Mt. 14:19. The intercalated words are not found in א*A B L N W or in most vss.

We must now examine the word εὐχαριστήσας, “having given thanks.” εὐλογεῖν is the verb used in the Synoptic parallels (Mk. 6:41, Mt. 14:19, Lk. 9:16); but Mk. (8:6) and Mt. (15:36) have εὐχαριστεῖν in a similar context in their narratives of the Feeding of the Four Thousand. In the accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Lk. (22:19) and Paul (1 Cor. 11:24) use εὐχαριστεῖν of the Blessing of the Bread, while Mt. (26:27), Mk. (14:23), and Lk. (22:17) use it of the Blessing of the Cup, the Cup being called by Paul τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν (1 Cor. 10:16). In these passages it is not possible to distinguish in meaning between εὐχαριστεῖν and εὐλογεῖν,¹ although εὐχαριστεῖν and εὐχαριστία soon came to be used in a special sense in connexion with the Holy Communion (cf. Ignat. Philad. 4 σπουδάσατε οὖν μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ, and see Justin, Apol. i. 66, and Iren. Hær. iv. 18. 5).

But the verb εὐλογεῖν is never used in Jn. (except once in a quotation, 12:13); and he uses εὐχαριστεῖν elsewhere (11:41, Πάτερ εὐχαριστῶ σοι) where no sacramental reference is possible. In this general sense, “giving of thanks,” εὐχαριστεῖν occurs a few times in the later books of the LXX (Judith 8:25, 2 Macc. 12:31) and in Philo, as well as frequently in the N.T., e.g. Lk. 17:16, 18:11, and very often in Paul.

It may be that the “giving of thanks” or “blessing” which all the evangelists mention in their narratives of the miraculous Feedings of the Multitudes was the grace before meat which the Lord used, and which was the usual habit of piety before a meal (cf. Deut. 8:10). The form of Jewish “grace” which has come down to us is, “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the world, who bringeth forth bread from the earth.” But if this is the allusion in εὐχαριστήσας or εὐλογήσας in the evangelical narratives of the Miraculous Feedings, it is curious that no such phrase occurs in connexion with the other meals described in the Gospels at which Jesus presided or was the principal Guest (Lk. 24:30 is sacramental). Jn. does not hint that “a blessing” was asked or pronounced at the Marriage Feast in Cana (2:1, or at the supper in Bethany (12:2), or at the meal by the lake-side (21:13). Cf. Mk. 14:3, Lk. 5:29, 7:37. In Acts 27:35 it is said, indeed, of Paul λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαρίστησεν τῷ θεῷ ἐνώπιον πάντων καὶ κλάσας ἤρξατο ἐσθίειν; but it is not clear that this was an ordinary meal preceded by a “grace.” Knowling and Blass regard it as a sacramental celebration.

Whatever be the reason, it would seem that the evangelical traditions handed down the incident of Jesus “blessing” the loaves at the Miraculous Feedings as an incident of special significance. The similarity to this verse of Jn. 21:13, λαμβάνει τὸν ἄρτον καὶ δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸ ὀψάριον ὁμοίως, brings out the more clearly the omission of any such word as εὐχαριστήσας or εὐλογήσας in the latter passage.

The stress that was laid in early times on the blessing of the loaves, in connexion with their multiplication, is apparent in a legend preserved in the second-century Acts of John (§ 93):“If at any time He were bidden by one of the Pharisees and went to the bidding, we accompanied Him; and before each was set one loaf by him that had bidden us, He also receiving one loaf. And, blessing His own loaf, He would divide it among us; and from that little each was filled (ἐκ τοῦ βραχέος ἕκαστος ἐχορτάζετο: see v. 7 above), and our own loaves were saved whole, so that they who bade Him were amazed.” The act of blessing is a preliminary condition of the miracle, according to this writer. See on 6:23 below.

ὅσον ἤθελον. All the evangelists agree in the statement that the multitudes “were filled,” i.e. that they had a substantial meal, and not merely a scrap of food; but Jn. is even more explicit, saying that of the fish as well as of the loaves they had as much as they wished for.

12. ἐνεπλήσθησαν. The Synoptists have ἐχορτάσθησαν, as Jn. has at v. 26. The phrase μετὰ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι used of the Eucharist in the Didache (10:1) probably comes from this passage.

τὰ περισσεύσαντα κλάσματα. Mk. (6:43) has the curious expression κλάσματα δώδεκα κοφίνων πληρώματα, but Mt. (14:20) has τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, and Lk. (9:17) has τὸ περισσεῦσαν αὐτοῖς κλασμάτων. Jn. uses περισσεύειν only here and in v. 13 (he has περισσόν at 10:10); and it has been suggested that he is here dependent either on Lk. or Mt., rather than Mk. But he was quite capable of correcting Mk.’s πληρώματα, just as Lk. and Mt. have done, and the verb περισσεύειν is the natural one to use. Jn. uses the word πλήρωμα only of the “fulness” of Christ (1:16), and avoids it in all other contexts, perhaps because of its misleading employment in Gnostic systems.

κλάσμα is a word used in the N.T. only in the Gospel accounts of the miraculous feedings. It is rare in LXX, but we find κλάσματα ἄρτων in Ezek. 13:19 and κλάσματι ἄρτου in Judg. 19:5 (A text). It is used of the Bread of the Eucharist in the Didache (ix. 3).

Lightfoot¹ recalls a Jewish custom at meals of leaving something over for those who served: this was called פאה, peah. This possibly is behind the incident recorded here. The apostles had each his travelling-basket or κόφινος (cf. Judg. 6:19), and having ministered to the people they went round and collected what was left over. Juvenal mentions the κόφινος as a basket characteristic of Jews: “quorum cophinus foenumque supellex” (Sat. iii. 14). All four evangelists have the word κόφινος, while in the parallel narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand the word is σπυρίς or σφυρίς, which was a hamper large enough to hold a man (Acts 9:25).

It is Jn. alone who tells that it was at the bidding of Jesus that the fragments were gathered up, and he alone adds a reason, viz. ἵνα μή τι ἀπόληται. This is one of those comments upon his narrative to which Jn. is so prone (see p. xxxiv), and no doubt it gives an excellent sense at this point. But the Synoptists know nothing of this, and the Jewish custom of leaving a peah or morsel at the end of a meal for the servers provides a sufficient explanation of the matter.

There is no suggestion that the bread, miraculously provided, was like the manna of ancient days, which could not be kept over from one day to another (Ex. 16:19); and the objection of the people recorded at v. 31 shows that they did not consider the supply of bread that they had witnessed as at all comparable with the manna from heaven which their fathers had enjoyed.

13. δώδεκα. This suggests that all the original apostles were present

ἐκ τῶν πέντε ἄρτων κτλ. Mk. (6:43) speaks of fragments of the fishes being gathered up along with the fragments of the loaves, but Jn. (as also Mt., Lk.) speaks only of the fragments of bread.

14. ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον. The people had already been attracted because of the “signs” of healing which Jesus did (v. 2); now this greater “sign” led them to think of him as “the prophet that cometh into the world.” The woman of Samaria had been convinced that He was “a prophet” (4:19), as the blind man whom He healed said of Him afterwards (9:17); but the miracle of the loaves and fishes inclined the eye-witnesses to go further, and to identify Jesus with the prophet of popular belief whom Israel expected (see on 1:21) as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Deut. 18:15. “They began to say” (ἔλεγον), “This is truly the prophet that is coming into the world” (see on 11:27). Cf. v. 31.

ἀληθῶς is a favourite adverb with Jn.; cf. οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης (7:40), and see on 1:47.

ὃ … σημεῖον, not ἃ … σημεῖα, is the true reading, the reference being to the particular “sign” which has just been described.

The rec., with A L NΓ Δ Θ, ins. ὁ Ἰησοῦς after σημεῖον, for clearness, but om. א B D W

15. Jn. generally writes ὁ Ἰησοῦς (see on 1:29), but we have Ἰησοῦς (without the art.) followed by οὖν, as here, several times; cf. 11:38. 18:4, 19:26.

γνοὺς ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἔρχεσθαι κτλ. The excited people, having concluded that Jesus was the prophet of their expectation, began to plot how they might seize Him (ἁρπάζειν) and make Him king, that is, the Messianic king. The Jerusalem crowds had the same idea when they cried “Hosanna” and greeted Him as “King of Israel” on His entry to the city (12:13). Indeed, it was made part of the charge against Him, that He had claimed to be “King of the Jews” (18:33f.). But He would not accept the title in the sense in which they understood it. He was not a political revolutionary. And so “He withdrew again to the hill” (see v. 3), from which He had come down to feed the people.

Mk. and Mt. tell nothing of the fanatical excitement of the crowds, or of their being so much impressed by the miracle as to think of Jesus as Messiah;¹ the only hint the Synoptists give of this being supplied by Lk., who follows up the narrative of the Feeding by the story of the various answers to the question, “Who do the multitudes say that I am?” (Lk. 9:18) which Mk. and Mt. put in another context.

Indeed, Mk. and Mt. give as the reason of Jesus’ retirement to the hill, that it was to pray, which is perhaps here suggested by μόνος. That was His habit, and such a motive for His retirement is not inconsistent with His other motive, viz. to be freed from the embarrassing attentions of the crowds. Mk. and Mt. tell that He dismissed the crowds (Mk. 6:45, Mt. 14:23), while Jn. suggests rather that He escaped from them. Probably He tried to disperse them, but some, more obstinate and excited than the rest, would not leave. It is these latter who come before us in v. 22 as having remained until the next morning. Again, Jn. does not mention that the return of the disciples was ordered by Jesus, as Mk. and Mt. do; but it is evident that they would not have left Him had they not been told to do so. He may have wished to remove them from the atmosphere of political excitement which had been generated. Apparently Jesus had not told His disciples exactly where and when they would meet Him again.

16. ὀψία may indicate any time in the late afternoon (cf. 20:19 and Mt. 14:15, 23). The sun set after the disciples had started, and it became dark (σκοτία, v. 17) while they were on the lake. Mk. 6:48 notes that Jesus met them “about the fourth watch of the night,” i.e. about 3 a.m.

κατέβησαν, “they descended,” sc. from the slopes of the hill.

16 ff. The incident is described with vividness. It was late in the evening when the boat started on the return journey to Capernaum (v. 17; see on v. 1). The wind had risen, and the lake was stormy. Mk. does not say that the destination of the boat was Capernaum, although that is what we should have expected: his words are ἠνάγκασεν τοὺς μαθητὰς … προάγειν εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν (Mk. 6:45), and he goes on to tell that, driven by the storm, they landed ultimately at Gennesaret, which is a little to the south of Capernaum. That is to say, according to Mk., they made for Bethsaida in the first instance; whether because they wished to take Jesus on board there, or to land one of the party (it was the home of some of them; see on 1:44), or because they wished to keep under the lee of the land, in view of the impending storm, we cannot tell. In any case the storm caught them, and when they had rowed 25 or 30 furlongs, that is, about 3 or 4 miles, they see Jesus περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, and coming near the boat. Now by this time, having rowed nearly 4 miles, they must have been close to the western shore of the lake, and so Jn. says: εὐθέως τὸ πλοῖον ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον.

If we had only Jn.’s account of this incident, we should have no reason to suppose that he intended to record any “miracle.” The phrase ἐπὶ τὴς θαλάσσης (v. 19) is used by Jn. again at 21:1, where it undoubtedly means “by the sea shore”; and it is probable that he means here that when the boat got into the shallow water near the western shore, the disciples saw Jesus in the uncertain light walking by the lake, and were frightened, not being sure what they saw. Jn. does not say, as Mk. does, that Jesus was received into the boat; he only says that they were desirous to have Him with them, when they found that the voyage was already over (v. 21). Nor does Jn. say anything about a miraculous stilling of the storm (cf. Mk. 6:51). Nor does he say (as Mk. 6:49, Mt. 14:26) that the disciples thought they had seen a phantasm (φάντασμα). So far from it being true that we always find in Jn. an enhancement of the miraculous, in this particular case, while the story as narrated by Mk. (followed by Mt.) is miraculous, in Jn. there is no miracle whatever. Nor does Jn. call the incident a “sign,” as he is accustomed to speak of the miracles which he records (cf. v. 14). In short, this story, as told by Jn., is exactly the kind of story that we might expect from John the son of Zebedee, a fisherman with experience of the lake in all its moods, well accustomed to its sudden storms, and knowing the distance from one point to another (v. 19). See Introd., p. clxxvi.

17. ἐμβάντες εἰς πλοῖον. The same phrase occurs for embarking 21:3 and 1 Macc. 15:37. A DΓ Θ W insert τό before πλοῖον, which no doubt gives the sense, it being probably their own boat that they took for their return voyage; but א B L Δ Omit τό.

ἤρχοντο, “they were going,” the impft. being used for an incompleted action.

For καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει, א D read κατέλαβεν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἡ σκοτία, “but darkness overtook them” (cf. 12:35 and 1:5, where see note). This, again, gives the sense, but we follow A B LΓ Δ N Θ W with the rec. text, although κατέλαβεν αὐτοὺς ἡ σκοτία is a thoroughly Johannine phrase.

18. The sea was rising because of the squall. We have the same expression ἡ θάλασσα … ἐξηγείρετο, Jonah 1:13.

19. ἐληλακότες. Cf. βασανιζομένους ἐν τῷ ἐλαύνειν (Mk. 6:48). ἐλαύνειν occurs again in N.T. only at Lk. 8:29, Jas. 3:4, 2 Pet. 2:17.

They had rowed about 25 or 30 stades, i.e., as a stade was 600 feet, nearly 4 miles, and therefore, as has been shown above (v. 16), they were close to the western shore. Mk. says they were ἐν μέσῳ τῆς θαλάσσης (Mk. 6:47), which need not mean more than that the water was all round them. Mt. adds to Mk.’s sentence, according to the text of BΘ (although the other uncials do not confirm this), σταδίους πολλοὺς (Θ has ἱκανούς) ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀπεῖχε, which seems to be a gloss derived from the narrative of Jn., but intended, after the manner of Mt., to emphasise the miraculousness of the story.

In some texts of Mt. 14:25 we have ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν for the ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης of Mk. 6:48 and Jn. 6:19. The latter does not necessarily mean more than “by the sea shore”: to read ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν would indicate beyond question that Jesus literally “walked on the sea.” Job says of the Creator that He “walks upon the high places of the sea,” περιπάτων ὡς ἐπʼ ἐδάφους ἐπὶ θαλάσσης (Job. 9:8); and Wisdom declares (Ecclus. 24:5), ἐν βάθει ἀβύσσων περιεπάτησα, from which passages it might be concluded that “walking upon the sea” is a Divine prerogative. It is possible that some such idea may account for the transformation of the Johannine tradition, which is void of miracle, into the supernatural story in Mk., Mt. See on v. 15 and Introd., p. clxxvi.

ἐγγὺς τοῦ πλοίου γινόμενον, sc. “getting near the boat,” a use of γίγνομαι for ἔρχομαι which we have again in v. 25; cf. Acts 20:16, 21:17, 25:15.

20. ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε. These comforting words are reported in identical phrase in the Marcan and Johannine narratives (cf. Mk. 6:50, Mt. 14:27, both of which prefix θαρσεῖτε). They probably mean simply “It is I: be not afraid,” the Marcan account suggesting that the reason of the disciples’ alarm was that they thought Jesus was a spirit (φάντασμα). Another explanation has been offered of ἐγώ εἰμι, viz. that it stands for the self-designation of Yahweh in the prophets, אֲנִי־הוּא, I (am) He; cf. 8:58, 13:19. But this explanation is not necessary here,¹ and such a mystical use of words would be foreign to the style of Mk., although there are parallels in Jn.

21. ἤθελον οὖν λαβεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πλ., “they were wishing to receive Him into the boat, and straightway the boat was at the land.” ἤθελον is used here as at 7:44, 16:19, the wish not being translated into action. Here Jn. is at variance with Mk. (6:51), who says, as also Mt. does (with an amplification about Peter’s going to Jesus on the water, Mt. 14:28–32), that Jesus climbed into the boat. The narrative of Jn. is simpler.

It has been objected to this view that we should expect ἀλλὰ εὐθέως τὸ. πλ. κτλ. rather than καὶ εὐθέως, if the meaning intended is that they did not receive Jesus into the boat, because they found their voyage already ended. But Jn. is prone to use καὶ, where ἀλλά or δέ would be employed by another writer (see on 1:11).

22 ff. The readings of א* in vv. 22–24 are curiously aberrant, and the text from א* must be transcribed in full: τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἑστὼς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶδεν ὅτι πλοιάριον ἄλλο οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ εἰ μὴ ἕν, ἐκεῖνο εἰς ὃ ἐνέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ὅτι οὐ συνεληλύθει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἀλλὰ μόνοι οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ· ἐπελθόντων οὖν τῶν πλοιῶν ἐκ Τιβεριάδος ἐγγὺς οὔσης ὅπου καὶ ἔφαγον ἄρτον, εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἴδοντες ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ ὁ Ἰησοῦς οὐδὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ ἦλθον κτλ. This is evidently a rewriting of the original, which has a clumsy parenthesis at v. 23.

Other variants are ἰδών (rec. reading with Γ Δ W, a casus pendens) for εἶδον (A B L NΘ), א D having εἶδεν; א*Γ Δ Θ interpolate the explanatory gloss ἐκεῖνο εἰς ὃ ἐνέβησαν οἱ μαθηταί of the rec. text; for πλοῖον (the true reading) at the end of v. 22, Γ Δ Θ give πλοιάριον; after ἀλλά, the rec. text with AΓ Δ Θ inserts δέ; B W have πλοῖα for πλοιάρια (the true reading; see exegetical note) in v. 23; for gratias agente domino, many Latin texts have gratias agentes domino, as if it was the multitude that had given thanks; and in v. 24, the rec. text with AΓ Δ Θ has πλοῖα for πλοιάρια (א^cB D L N W).

22. τῇ ἐπαύριον. See on 1:19, 29. Some, perhaps the more zealous of the crowd, had remained all night on the scene of the miracle, in the hope that they would succeed in their attempt (v. 15) to set up Jesus as king, the more apathetic, or the more submissive, having dispersed to their homes.

The construction of the sentence is difficult, and attempts to make it more consecutive have led to various readings. The balance of authority is for εἶδον (see above), but the rec. ἰδών would be more natural. The meaning is: On the next day the crowd which had stood (ἑστηκώς) on the other (i.e. the eastern) side of the lake, having seen (sc. the evening before) that only one boat was there, and that the disciples had embarked in their boat without Jesus, started for Capernaum in the little boats that came from Tiberias during the night. There had been only one boat on the beach the previous evening, which they had seen go without Jesus; but they could not find Jesus in the morning, and so they decided to go after Him in the little boats that had since been driven in by the storm. These, apparently, were sufficient for all the zealous watchers, so that their number could not have been very large.

A πλοιάριον, “little boat,” is mentioned in N.T. only at Mk. 3:9, Jn. 21:8 (where it is the skiff or dinghy belonging to the πλοῖον of 21:3, 6), and in this passage. τὸ πλοῖον was the big fishing-boat, able to carry Jesus and the Twelve, which has been mentioned already (vv. 17, 19, 21); there had been no other πλοιάριον on the beach the previous evening (perhaps Jn. means no other πλοιάριον besides the dinghy belonging to the πλοῖον, which had gone with it). But several small boats (πλοιάρια) had been driven in from Tiberias (see for Tiberias on v. 1 above) by the squall during the night, and these were available.

23. This parenthetical verse appears to be a later gloss. It is, indeed, necessary to the narrative, which tells that the disappointed watchers by the lake crossed over to Capernaum, and hitherto there has been no mention of any boats that they could have used. But (1) the town of Tiberias (see on v. 1) is not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T., and had only recently been founded. (2) More significant is the description of the scene of the miracle τοῦ τόπου ὅπου ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου. Nowhere else are the five loaves of the story called ὁ ἄρτος in the singular, that being the way, on the contrary, in which the Eucharistic bread is always spoken of (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16, 17, 11:27). (3) εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου suggests that this was the central fact which would at once identify the occurrence, whereas we expect an expression like “where He fed the multitudes.” (4) The meaning of εὐχαριστεῖν has been examined above (v. 11), but here it seems to bear its later sacramental significance, the writer giving a sacramental turn to the miracle, which Jn. studiously avoids in his narrative. (5) Specially noteworthy is it that D 69* a e Syr. sin. and Syr. cur (a strong combination) omit the words εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου here; and several of the Latin vg. texts avoid them by the mistaken rendering gratias agentes domino, “agentes” replacing “agente.” (6) As we have seen above (on 4:1), ὁ κύριος is not Johannine in narrative (except after the Resurrection). Jn. would have used ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Verse 23 must be regarded as a non-Johannine gloss (see Introd., p. xxxiii).

24. There is no art. before Ἰησοῦς, contrary to the general usage of Jn. (see on 1:29). But the reason is the same as at 4:1, 47, viz. that ὅτι is here recitantis. What the people actually said to each other was, “Jesus is not there, nor His disciples.”

25. εὐρόντες αὐτόν. Jesus had reached Capernaum with His disciples (cf. vv. 17, 59), and the crowds found Him there πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης, that is, now on the western side of the lake, the side opposite to that from which they started.

For “Rabbi,” the title by which these excited followers addressed Him, see on 1:38.

πότε ὧδε γέγονας; “When did you get here?” See on v. 19. Jesus gives no answer to their question, but rebukes them for their lack of understanding (v. 26).

Discourse: Jesus the Bread of Life, Which is Given by the Father (vv. 26–40)

26. Jn. states (v. 59) that the long discourse which follows, interrupted at several points by questions, was delivered in the synagogue at Capernaum; and it is represented as marking a turning-point in the ministry of Jesus, many, even of His former disciples (v. 66), being repelled by the strange and lofty mysticism which it teaches. There is no reason to question the statement that a discourse about the Bread of Life followed the Miracle of the Loaves, in correction of the failure to appreciate its significance by some of those who had been fed. But it can hardly be doubted that the whole discourse, as we have it, has been arranged by Jn. so as to bring out special (and often repeated) teachings of Jesus about His own person, and to illustrate the growing opposition of “the Jews” (v. 41).

The plan of the discourse in all its parts is similar to that in the discourses with Nicodemus and with the Samaritan woman.¹ It falls into three sections (vv. 26–40, 41–51a, 51b–58), but cf. note on v. 51, and Introd., p. clxvii.

οὐχ ὕτι εἴδετε σημεῖα.² They had seen a σημεῖον in the Miraculous Feeding (v. 14), and if they had interpreted it aright, the faith which would have ensued would have been acceptable, although not of the highest type (see on 2:11). But they were following Jesus about because of the material benefits which they had received at His hands (ὅτι ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων, “because you ate of those loaves”), rather than because they discerned in Him the spiritual Deliverer of their race. They mistook His mission, as some of them had shown already (cf. vv. 15 and 30).

καὶ ἐχορτάσθητε, et saturati estis. See on v. 12, where Jn. has ἐνεπλήσθησαν instead of the Synoptic ἐχορτάσθησαν. But bodily satiety does not last. They would be, perhaps were already, hungry again.

27. ἐργάζεσθε μὴ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν ἀπολλυμένην, “work not for the food which perishes,” as even the manna did (Ex. 16:20), but for the spiritual food which endures. The exhortation recalls the rebuke of Isa. 55:2, “Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which satisfieth not?” Cf. Ignatius (Rom. 7) οὐχ ἥδομαι τροφῇ φθορᾶς, words, perhaps, suggested by the present passage.

For βρῶσις, βρῶμα, see on 4:32. א om. τὴν βρῶσιν before τὴν μένουσαν, but the sense is not affected.

τὴν μένουσαν. It is the abiding and permanent property of the spiritual food upon which stress is laid throughout the discourse; cf. vv. 35, 50, 54, 58.

εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. For this phrase, see on 4:14 and cf. 3:15.

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. It is the Son of Man, and He alone, such is His uniqueness and mystery, who can give that spiritual food which endures “unto eternal life”; cf. v. 53. See Introd., p. cxxx.

ὑμῖν δώσει is the reading of the rec. text, with A B L WΓ Δ Θ but א D have δίδωσιν ὑμῖν. The future is to be preferred; cf. the parallel δώσω αὐτῷ in 4:14, and ἐγὼ δώσω in v. 51. His giving of “life” is spoken of in the present tense (v. 33; cf. 10:28), but the giving of the spiritual food, which was His Flesh, with a view to the imparting of that eternal life, was still in the future. See further on v. 51b.

τοῦτον γάρ κτλ. This is the ultimate explanation of the power vested in the Son (cf. 3:17) of imparting life: “Him did the Father seal” (see on 5:19). Cf. 5:20 ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν κτλ., and also 5:37 ὁ … πατὴρ … μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ ἐμοῦ.

For the frequency of the designation in Jn. of God as ὁ πατήρ, see on 4:21; here, at the end of the sentence, ὁ θεός is added, apparently for emphasis, the reference to ὁ πατήρ being unmistakable without it (cf. vv. 37, 44–46, 57, 65).

ἐσφράγισεν occurs in Jn. elsewhere only at 3:33, where it is used of an attestation by man, its usual meaning. The idea of a “sealing” by God is rare in the N.T., occurring again only in 2 Cor. 1:22, Eph. 1:13, 4:30; and in each of these places there is an allusion, direct or implied, to the baptism of Christian converts. Here the aorist marks a Divine act at a particular moment of time, and the reference seems to be to the Baptism of Jesus and the Descent of the Spirit upon Him, which was interpreted by the Baptist as the Divine attestation of His mission (1:32f.). But cf. 5:37.

The description of baptism as a seal became common in Christian literature at an early date; cf. Hermas, Sim. ix. 16, and 2 Clem. 8. In the Odes of Solomon the “sealing” by God is explicitly mentioned: “On their faces I set my seal” (Ode viii. 16; cf. also 4:8).

28. εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτόν. For the constr. here and at v. 34, see on 2:3.

ποιῶμεν (א A B L N T Γ Δ) is the true reading, not ποιοῦμεν of the rec. text. Θ W fam. 13 have ποιήσωμεν.

τί ποιῶμεν; “What shall we do?” The question is not mere carping. They understand that they must please God, if they are to have the food which endures unto eternal life; and they ask quite naturally, “What then are we to do? What does God require of us?” (cf. Lk. 3:10).

ἵνα ἑργαζώμεθα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ, i.e. the works which God desires of men (cf. 1 Cor. 15:58). Cf. τὰ ἔργα Κυρίου (Jer. 31:10, LXX). The phrase in Num. 8:11 ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα Κυρίου is no true parallel; and the ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ of Jn. 9:3 denote the works which God Himself does.

To their question, Jesus replies that works are the issue of the life of faith, that faith in Him is the condition of doing τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ.

29. The answer of Jesus contains, in small compass, the gist of the Pauline teaching about faith.

Jesus will not allow the Jewish inquirers to begin by speakng of working the works of God. They must get away from the legalism which counted up good works as meriting from God the recompense of eternal life. There is one ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ which must precede all others, because it alone places the man in his true relation with God, viz. faith in Christ.

The βρῶμα, or spiritual food, of the Incarnate Christ Himself was to do God’s will and accomplish His work (4:34, where see note); but man cannot do this without sharing in the humanity of Christ which He imparts to those who have faith in Him (v. 51). Here is the βρῶσις which He gives, and which endures εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (v. 47). This mystical doctrine of union with Christ is the core of the Fourth Gospel; see, for earlier statements of it, 3:15, 36 and the notes there.

The question and its answer are like the question of the jailor at Philippi and the answer of Paul and Silas: τί με δεῖ ποιεῖν ἵνα σωθῶ; … πίστευσον ἐπί τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ σωθήσῃ (Acts 16:30, 31).

πιστεύητε (א A B L N T Θ) is the true reading; the rec. text with D W has πιστεύσητε, but this does not convey the teaching of Jn. about faith. ἵνα πιστεύσητε points to a definite act of faith at a particular moment (cf. 13:19); but this does not suffice. τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ is ἵνα πιστεύητε, “that you may have faith continually,” that you may live the life of faith. An act of faith in Christ at a definite crisis is a good thing, but a better (and a harder) thing is to keep in perpetual contact with Christ, and nothing less than this is what is needed εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (see above on 3:36, and cf. 15:7).

ἐκεῖνος, i.e. God, is placed at the end of the sentence for emphasis. See on 1:8 for Jn.’s use of ἐκεῖνος.

30. τί οὖν ποιεῖς σὺ σημεῖον; A similar demand made by the Pharisees for a “sign from heaven” is placed in Mk. 8:11 (so Mt. 16:1; cf. Mt. 12:38) as following on the Feeding of the Four Thousand. There, as here, Jesus is represented as having declined (and with indignation) the request. Lk. does not tell the story of this second miraculous feeding, and he puts the request for a sign in a different context (11:16; cf. also 23:8).

Like the Pharisees in Mk. 8:11, the interlocutors in the Johannine story were not convinced that by the miraculous feeding Jesus had established His claim to be a messenger from God. Some, at least, of those who had seen it said that He was the expected prophet, and were for making Him a king (vv. 14, 15). But by the next day all were not so fully persuaded. If Jesus were really a Divine messenger, they expected something more. They were not satisfied as to the character of the action which had been acclaimed by them as a σημεῖον (v. 14). So, like the Jews in 2:18, who had asked τί σημεῖον δεικνύεις ἡμῖν; they now ask τί ποιεῖς σὺ σημεῖον; the emphatic word here being σύ, “What sign do you show?”

ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμέν σοι. They did not understand what He had meant by “believing in Him” (v. 29), for they take up the words in the altered form “believe thee.” They imply that if they saw a really convincing sign, something greater than anything they had witnessed yet (vv. 2, 14, 26), they would believe Him, that is, believe His words (cf. 8:31). But this is not what Jesus claimed of them. To believe His words would be, no doubt, the beginning of discipleship, and of faith in His Person (see on v. 29); but it would not be enough εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

τί ἐργάζῃ; They think that Jesus has been referring to manna, and they ask Him to provide it (see Introd., p. cxi). ἐργάζῃ refers back to vv. 28, 29.

31. To appreciate the significance of this allusion to the manna, it must be borne in mind that there was a general belief, more or less explicit, that Messiah when He came would outdo Moses, the great national hero of Israel, in the wonders which he would accomplish. Thus there was a Rabbinical saying: “The former redeemer caused manna to descend for them; in like manner shall our latter redeemer cause manna to come down, as it is written, ‘There shall be a handful of corn in the earth’ (Ps. 72:16).”¹ Accordingly the questioners of Jesus are here represented as telling Him that something more wonderful than the miracle of the loaves was expected of one who claimed to be the Messiah (cf. vv. 14, 27). We have here a reminiscence of an objection to Jesus which is historical: “The key to the understanding of the whole situation is an acquaintance with the national expectation of the greater Moses. But this knowledge is not obtruded upon us by the evangelist. It is tacitly assumed. In fact, the meaning is unintelligible, except to one who is brought up among the ideas of his time, or to one who, like a modern critic, has made them his special study.”²

οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν κτλ. As Chrysostom notes, this corresponds to the reference made by the Samaritan woman to “our father Jacob” (4:12; see Introd., p. cxi, for the schematism of the present discourse).

The provision of the manna (Ex. 16:15, Num. 11:7, 21:5, Deut. 8:3, Wisd. 16:20, 2 Esd. 1:19) was counted by the Jews as the greatest achievement of Moses. Josephus says of the manna θεῖον ἦν τὸ βρῶμα καὶ παράδοξον (Antt. iii. i. 6).

καθώς ἐστιν γεγραμμένον. This is the usual form of citation in in. (see on 2:17).

ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν (from Ex. 16:15 freely quoted; but cf. Ps. 78:24, Neh. 9:15). Their appeal is: “What Moses gave us was bread from heaven; can you do the same?” The loaves with which the multitudes had been fed were not ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, but the ordinary barley loaves (v. 9) with which all were familiar.

32. Jesus corrects a twofold misapprehension on the part of His questioners. First, it was not Moses who was the giver of the manna, but God, whose instrument he was; and, secondly, the manna, while it was in a sense “bread from heaven,” was not the true Bread of God. This momentous saying is introduced by the solemn ὀμὴν ἀμήν (see on 1:51).

The objectors had not named Moses, but Jesus knew what was in their minds, and that they were disparaging Him in comparison with Moses.

οὐ Μωϋσῆς ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τ. οὐ., “Moses did not give you that (τὸν) bread from heaven”; what had been given to their fathers might be spoken of as given to them who were the heirs and descendants of the ancient race that came out of Egypt. The manna of old was in a true sense the gift of God; that is not questioned in the reply of Jesus: what He questions is that it was given by Moses.

δίδωσιν ὑμῖν. “Gives,” not “gave.” The Divine gift now to be revealed is continuously offered.

τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν, “the genuine Bread from heaven”; see on 1:9 for ἀληθινός, and note its use in the dialogue with the Samaritan woman at 4:23. It seems to be implied, although not directly expressed yet, that the genuine heavenly Bread must be such as will nourish the heavenly life, the life of “the kingdom of heaven.”

33. ὁ γὰρ ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ.¹ All bread is the gift of God (Mt. 6:11), but the Bread which can be described as peculiarly ὁ ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ is not only such as “comes down from heaven,” for that was said of the manna (κατέβαινεν, Num. 11:9), but such as coming down imparts life and not merely bodily nourishment. Chrysostom notes that the manna supplied τροφή but not ζωή. But the first characteristic of the Bread of God is that it brings life (see on v. 27). And the second is that it is offered to all men, and not only to a particular nation; ζωὴν διδούς, “giving life” (in the present tense, that is, continually giving life) τῷ κόσμῳ. See on 1:29 for κόσμος, which is one of the master words of Jn.; and also on v. 51 below. Cf. 1:4.

ὁ ψὰρ ἄρτ. τ. θε. ἐστιν ὁ καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, i.e. “the Bread of God is that which is ever descending [not He who descends] from heaven.” It is not until v. 35 that Jesus says that He is the Bread of Life. This expression, “who came down from heaven,” or “which comes down from heaven,” is repeated seven times in this discourse (vv. 33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58), recurring like a solemn refrain. It was afterwards incorporated in the Nicene Creed. See on 3:13 above.

34. The idea that the manna typified heavenly bread for the soul often appears in the Jewish commentaries. Wetstein quotes several passages in illustration, e.g. “sectio haec de manna est una ex praestantibus sectionibus legis quae non solum res gestas historice narrant, sed et typum continent uitae ac felicitatis hominis ultimae et aeternae.”¹ Again, the comment in Bereshith R. lxxxii. 9 on the good man of Prov. 12:2 is “saturabitur pane saeculi futuri.”

The same conception of heavenly bread for the soul is frequent in Philo. Wisdom offers οὐράνιος τροφή by means of λόγοι and δόγματα (de opif. mundi, § 56). The θεῖος λόγος divides equally among all men the heavenly food of the soul which Moses calls manna (Quis rer. div. hær. § 39). So in an earlier passage (§ 15) Philo speaks of the man who contemplates τὸ μάννα, τὸν θεῖον λόγον, τὴν οὐράνιον ψυχῆς φιλοθεάμονος ἄφθαρτον τροφήν. Again, the θεῖοι λόγοι are the manna, the heavenly food, which nourishes men (de congr. erud. gr. § 30). What nourishes the soul is ῥῆμα θεοῦ καὶ λόγος θεῖος, from which flow all kinds of wisdom (de prof. 25). Cf. also the question and answer in Legg. all. iii. 59 ὁρᾷς τῆς ψυχῆς τροφὴν οἵα ἐστι λόγος θεοῦ συνεχής. See further on v. 35.

More familiar than any of these passages is 1 Cor. 10:3, where Paul, allegorising the story of the manna, describes it as βρῶμα πνευματικόν, “spiritual food.”

The questioners who are represented by Jn. as arguing about the manna were probably acquainted with this idea of it as a type of heavenly food for the soul. So when Jesus says that the true Bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life, they do not cavil at such a thought. Indeed, they welcome it. This was what they were waiting for. Moses had given manna. The Messiah was to give a greater gift (see above on v. 31). So their answer is, “Give us evermore this bread.” Here, again, Jn. faithfully reproduces the theological temper and expectation of the times which he describes. The Jews would not have stumbled at the idea of spiritual food, of heavenly bread, as typified by the manna, and Jn. does not represent them as finding any fault with it. Their objection comes later (v. 41, where see note).

εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτόν. The constr. is the same at v. 28. See on 2:3.

κύριε. They now address Jesus by this title of respect; see on 1:38, and cf. 4:11, 15, 19 for its use by the woman of Samaria, who says δός μοι (4:15), just as the inquirers here say δὸς ἡμῖν. See above on 6:26ff.

πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν, “give us always” (πάντοτε occurs again in Jn. 7:6, 8:29, 11:42, 12:8, 18:20). They asked that they might be guaranteed a perpetual supply of the heavenly bread. More modest is the form of the petition for bread, earthly or heavenly, prescribed in Mt. 6:11 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον. It is only for to-day’s supply that Jesus teaches men to ask.

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον, “this bread,” superior to the manna, of which Jesus had spoken.

35. At this point Jesus passes on to an explicit announcement of His personal claims, and the pronouns “I” and “Me” occur frequently, vv. 37–71. As we have seen, His hearers were prepared for the idea of heavenly bread, but they were quite unprepared for such a mystical saying as “I am the Bread of Life,” or for the tremendous claim which it involved. A pronouncement of this sort did not carry conviction to them; for they were looking for a “sign” comparable to the provision of the manna, but even more wonderful, as would befit the dignity of the Deliverer who was to be greater than Moses.

ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς. For the great Similitudes of the Fourth Gospel, of which this is the first, and for the significance of the opening phrase ἐγώ εἰμι, see Introd., p. cxviii.

It has been thought by some critics that this majestic sentence (repeated v. 48) is directly due, as regards its substance, although not as regards its form, to the influence of Philo. In several passages to which reference has been made already (see on v. 34), Philo says that the manna typified heavenly food. This, as we have seen, is not peculiar to Philo; but the Rabbinical writings do not seem to provide a parallel to the comparison of manna to the θεῖος λόγος, which Philo has more than once. That Jn.’s phraseology, here as elsewhere, may have been affected by his acquaintance with the terms of the Philonic philosophy is not impossible. There is, indeed, nothing difficult of credence in Jn.’s report that Jesus taught that He was Himself the Bread of Life, such teaching being not only congruous with the Synoptic representation of His words at the institution of the Eucharist (Mk. 14:22, Mt. 26:26, Lk. 22:19), but being specially apposite in the context in which Jn. has placed it (see above on v. 26 f.). But, for all that, when reporting the claim of Jesus to be the Bread of Life, Jn. may have had in his mind Philo’s words about the θεῖος λόγος as the heavenly nourishment of the soul (Quis rer. div. hær. § 15). Jn’s conception of the Logos as a Person, Himself God Incarnate, is so widely different from Philo’s conception of the λόγοι as representing Divine forces, and the λόγος as the Divine Reason, that similarities of language between the two writers do not establish dependence of thought, or any borrowing of ideas from Philo on the part of Jn.¹

The “Bread of Life” means primarily, the Bread which gives life, as we see from v. 33. But for this phrase is substituted in v. 51 ὁ ἀρτὸς ὁ ζῶν, the “living Bread,” i.e. the Bread that has life in itself. This second, larger meaning is virtually involved in the first, for life can only proceed from life, omne vivum ex vivo; and so that which gives life must itself be “living.” See on 15:26.

There is the same double sense in the similar phrase “the water of life” (Rev. 21:6, 22:1), sc. the water which gives life, and is therefore “living water” (see on 4:10). Cf. the expressions the “Light of life” in 8:12, where see the note; the “Tree of life” (Gen. 3:22, Rev. 2:7, etc.); and the “Word of life” (1 Jn. 1:1), i.e. the Word who gives life. Cf. v. 68.

ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ἐμέ κτλ. “Coming” and “believing” are put side by side here and at 7:37, 38. The “coming” is the initial act of the soul in its approach to Jesus; the “believing” is the continuous resting in His fellowship (see on v. 29). As Jn. has much about “believing,” so he has much about “coming,” and reports many sayings of Jesus about its benediction. Inquirers “come” to Jesus (3:26, 4:30, 10:41); all candid and truthful souls come to the Light (3:21); e.g. Nathanael (1:48), or the two disciples whose call is the first recorded by Jn. (1:39). The first reward of “coming” is vision, ἔρχεσθε καὶ ὄψεσθε (1:39); the second (and ultimate) reward is life (5:40). All are welcome, ἐάν τις διψᾷ, ἐρχέσθω πρός με (7:37). He who comes will not be cast out (6:37). To approach God a man must come to Jesus, οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ διʼ ἐμοῦ (14:6). This is the Only Way. And yet, free as is this approach, no one can come to Jesus, except the Father draw him (6:44, 65). This teaching is fuller than that of the Synoptic Gospels, but in germ it is all contained in Mt. 11:28 δεῦτε πρός με … κἀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑμᾶς. This is the Matthæan counterpart of the utterance before us in this verse, “He that cometh to me shall never hunger”; the desire of the soul will be satisfied.

καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, “he who believes on me” (see on v. 29 and on 1:12 above). This is the ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ spoken of in v. 29.

οὐ μὴ διψήσει. So א A B*D W Θ; the rec. has διψήσῃ. The promise is the same as that given to the woman of Samaria ὃς δʼ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (4:14, where see the note and esp. the quotation from Ecclus. 24:21; cf. Rev. 7:16).

36. The rec. text, with B D L WΓ Δ Θ, adds με after ἑωράκατε, but om. א A a b e q, Syr. cu. and Syr. sin. It is probable that με ought to be omitted. The words “I said to you that ye saw and do not believe” then clearly refer back to v. 26, where Jesus had said, “Ye seek me not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, etc.” Seeing is not always believing (cf. 9:37). The kind of faith that is generated by the seeing of signs is not the highest (see on 2:11), but it is not without its value (cf. 14:11). The best kind of all has the benediction, “Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed” (20:29); cf. ὁ πιστεύων ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (v. 47).

On the other hand, if ἑωράκατέ με is the true reading, we must suppose that Jesus is represented as alluding to some saying of His which has not been recorded by Jn. This is not impossible; see, for other instances, 10:25, 11:40.

37. The questioners of Jesus did not believe or accept Him, but that rejection of theirs does not alter the Divine purpose, which is that all who will shall have eternal life. Upon this Jesus rests, despite incredulity on the part of some who heard Him. “All that the Father gives to me shall come to me”: that is enough, for He came to do the Father’s will, and the Father knows best as to those whom He gives. For the predestinarian doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, see on 2:4, 3:14

For the thought that His disciples are “given” to the Son by the Father, cf. vv. 39, 65, and 10:29, 17:2, 6, 9, 12, 24, 18:9. See note on 3:35.

πᾶν, sc. all men. This collective use of the neut. sing. is not unknown in classical Greek. Jn. has it several times (17:2, 24, 1 Jn. 5:4, as well as at v. 39 and here), and always of the sum of those who have been “begotten of God” and “given” by the Father to the Son. The ideal for those who believe in Christ is ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν (17:21), “that they all may be one,” and it is possible that this great conception may be behind the use of πᾶν for πάντες here and in 17:2.

τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρός με. See for this phrase on v. 35 above.

τ. ἐρχ. πρός με οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω, “I shall not cast out”; a litotes for “I shall welcome.” The “casting out” indicated is from the kingdom of God, hereafter as well as here; in v. 39, the reference is to the Last Judgment, and this is implied here also. Cf. 12:31, where the judgment on Satan is ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω, the same phrase as here (cf. 17:12); and see for ἐκβάλλειν in similar contexts Mt. 8:12, 22:13, 25:30.

א*D om. ἔξω as redundant, but it is well supported (א^cA B L W Θ), and the combination ἐκβάλλειν ἔξω or ἐκ occurs again 2:15, 9:34, 35, 12:31; cf. Mt. 21:39, Mk. 12:8, Lk. 20:15, etc.

οὐ μή expresses a very strong negation, “I will surely not cast out.” This constr. occurs elsewhere in words of Jesus, Mk. 14:25, and Jn. 18:11, οὐ μὴ πίω, it being generally taken as interrogative in the latter passage, where see note.

38. καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. So A B L T WΘ fam. 13; but καταβέβηκα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is read by א D Γ Δ, and may be right. The phrase καταβαίνειν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is found again (of Christ) at 3:13, 6:33, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58; see also Rev. 3:12, 10:1, 13:13, 16:21, 18:1, 20:1, 9, 21:2, 10 and Jn. 1:32; whereas καταβαίνειν ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ only occurs at 1 Thess. 4:16 of the Second Advent. In any case the meaning is the same, for it is an excess of refinement to distinguish in Jn. between the force of ἀπό and of ἐκ. See on 1:44.

οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμόν κτλ. This is said also at 5:30, οὐ ζητῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με. See notes on 4:34 and 5:30.

The argument is: “Every one whom the Father gives to me comes to me, and I will not reject him (v. 37), because (ὅτι) I came from heaven to do my Father’s will (v. 38), and His will is that none should perish of those whom He has given me” (v. 39).

39. After τοῦ πέμψαντός με, the rec. adds πατρός (from v. 40), but om. πατρός א*A B C W.

א A D N insert ἐν before τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, but om. B C L TΘ (cf. v. 54). W has αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ.

For the broken construction of the sentence, a casus pendens (πᾶν ὃ κτλ.) followed by a pronoun, see on 1:12. This is frequent in Jn.

πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι refers to πᾶν ὃ δίδωδσίν μοι of v. 37. That none of them should perish finally is the will of the Father, and they are all therefore in the safe keeping of Christ. This is repeated in somewhat similar words at 10:28, 29; and there is a close parallel at Mt. 18:14 οὐκ ἔστιν θέλημα ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν … ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μικρῶν τούτων. Cf. also 17:12 (18:9), where the exception of Judas is mentioned.

ἀναστήσω αὐτὸ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρα. “Hic finis est, ultra quem periculum nullum” (Bengel). This great assurance is repeated four times, in vv. 39, 40, 44, 54, and recurs with the majesty of a solemn refrain (see on 3:16 and on 15:11). The expression ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα is found in Jn. only. In 7:37 it is used of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles; but at 11:24, 12:48 it refers, as it does in this chapter, to the Day of Judgment.¹ For the Christ, the Son of God, as the Agent of the Resurrection, see on 5:21, 28. It is He that will quicken the dead at last. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:22.

Here it is only the resurrection of the righteous that is in view, whereas at 5:28 a general resurrection of the dead is spoken of as brought about by the Voice of the Son of God.

40. AΓ Δ have τοῦ πέμψαντός με (from v. 39) for τοῦ πατρός μου, which is read by א B C D L T N W Θ. There is, again, as in vv. 39, 54, a variant for ἐν τῇ ἐσχ. ἡμ., ἐν being om. by B C TΓ Δ Θ W, although found in א A D L N.

τοῦτο γάρ κτλ., “This, too, is my Father’s will”: v. 40 amplifies and repeats with emphasis what has been already said in v. 39. The rec. has τοῦτο δέ.

πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱόν, “who beholdeth the Son,” sc. not with the bodily eyes, but with the eye of faith perceives Him for what He is. Cf. 12:45 ὁ θεωρῶν ἐμὲ θεωρεῖ τὸν πέμψαντά με. See on 2:23 for Jn.’s use of θεωρῶ, and on 3:17 for ὁ υἱός used absolutely. It is the Father’s will that “he who beholdeth the Son and believeth on Him should have eternal life”; cf. 3:15, 36 and the notes thereon. This ζωὴ αἰώνιος begins in the present world, but its possession continues after death.

ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγώ κτλ., “I, even I (ἐγώ is emphatic) will raise Him up at the Last Day.” This is repeated in another form at v. 54. Cf. Introd., p. clxvii.

41. A new stage in the argument is reached at v. 41, but it is not suggested that new interlocutors have appeared on the scene. The questioners are called (here and at v. 52) οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, and it has been thought by some that they were officials of the synagogue at Capernaum, where Jn. represents the conversation as taking place (v. 59), or emissaries of the Sanhedrim, who had been sent to inquire into the discourses and the acts of Jesus (cf. Mk. 7:1). But the context shows that Jn. thinks of them as Gaiilæans (cf. vv. 24, 42). They were not οἱ ὀυδαῖοι in the sense that they were inhabitants of Judæa, but they were “Jews” by religious conviction and by race in the larger sense of “Israelite.” It was “Jews” like them who were the chief opponents of Jesus, and Jn. nearly always uses the term as connoting a certain hostility to Jesus and unbelief in His claims. See above on 1:19. Hostility, however, is not yet suggested. For this section of the Discourse, see Introd., pp. cxi, clxvii.

ἐγόγγυζον, “they were murmuring,” sc. in critical mood, as at vv. 43, 61 (cf. Ex. 16:7f.); neither at 7:32 nor here does γογγύζειν carry any implication of open hostility. The word does not occur in Mk., but is found Mt. 20:11, Lk. 5:30.

The difficulty of the questioners was caused by the claims involved in ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (cf. vv. 33, 35). The idea of heavenly bread might have been accepted (see above on v. 34); but these words of Jesus seemed to imply that He was not like ordinary men in the manner of His birth, in that He had “come down from heaven” (see on 3:13).

No distinction can be drawn between ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ here (also vv. 51, 58) and ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in v. 38, where see note.

42. καὶ ἔλεγον κτλ., “And they were saying, Is not this person (οὗτος, perhaps with a slight suggestion of disparagement, as at v. 52, 7:15) Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” It is plain (see on v. 41) that Jn. conceives of the speakers as natives of Galilee, and acquainted with the household at Nazareth. The Synoptists (Mk. 6:3, Mt. 13:55, Lk. 4:22) mention a similar criticism (the words in Lk. are οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος;) as having been passed on Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth at an earlier point in His ministry. The criticism was probably made more than once, and it is natural in the context where Jn. places it. But it is possible that he has taken the episode out of its historical setting; as in 4:44 (where see note) he has introduced the proverb about a prophet being without honour in his own country, which the Synoptists place in sequence to the criticism, “Is not this the son of Mary? Is not this the son of Joseph?”

As at 1:45 (where see note), Jn. does not stay to comment on the mistake which is involved in the question, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” It is unnecessary for him to explain to Christian readers that this was not so. There is nothing in the form of the question to suggest that Joseph was alive, and the probability is that he had died before the public ministry of Jesus began (see on 2:1).

πῶς νῦν λέγει κτλ. For νῦν, the rec. text (with א A D L Γ Δ N) has οὖν, but νῦν is read by B C T WΘ, and has a special force, “How does he say now that, etc.,” sc. to us who have known him from a child. οὗτος is inserted again after λέγει by א A Γ Δ, but is redundant. ὅτι, recitantis, the words following being a citation.

ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβέβηκα, the order of the words being changed, ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ being placed first for emphasis. This was the incredible thing, that it was from heaven He claimed to have come down.

43. Jesus does not answer the objection as to His parentage being known. As at 3:3, He proceeds to point out a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of His interlocutors. They must be “taught of God” before they can accept His heavenly origin.

μὴ γογγύζετε μετʼ ἀλλήλων. They will not reach a true understanding by whispering to each other. They must seek enlightenment from God.

44. οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ … ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν. This is repeated v. 65 οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. Here is a fundamental doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, viz. that the approach of the soul to God or Christ is not initiated by the man himself, but by a movement of Divine grace. We have had it adumbrated at 4:23, where it is said that the Universal Father seeks His genuine worshippers (see note in loc.); and the hard saying of 12:39 (where see note) that the Jews could not believe, because Isaiah’s words about the blinding of their eyes by God must have fulfilment, is an explicit statement of the darker side of the doctrine of predestination. (See Introd., p. clii f.). Here is the counterpart of v. 37, “All (πᾶν) that the Father gives me shall come to me”; in v. 44 we have “no one (οὐδείς) can come except the Father draw him” (cf. 3:27).

We might have expected that here Jesus would have been represented as saying “My Father” (see on 2:16), for the question at issue is that of His uniquely Divine origin; but in Jn. we find ὁ πατήρ more frequently than ὁ πατήρ μου on the lips of Jesus. (See on 3:17 for the similar ὁ υἱός, used absolutely.)

ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με. See also on 3:17 for the conception of the Son as “sent” by the Father.

ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν. ἑλκύειν is used in the LXX of Jer. 31:3 of the Divine attraction: “With lovingkindness have I drawn thee.” It is used of the attractive power of Christ Crucified in Jn. 12:32, occurring elsewhere in the N.T. only at Jn. 18:10 (of drawing a sword), Jn. 21:6, 11 (of dragging a net ashore), and Acts 16:19 (of dragging Paul and Silas to the magistrates). It seems generally to connote a certain resistance on the part of that which is “dragged” or “drawn,” and this may be involved in its use in the present verse (but cf. Cant. 1:4).

κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. This is the consummation of that spiritual progress which begins by a certain Divine constraint. See on v. 39 for this great assurance, four times repeated in this passage.

45. In confirmation of the doctrine that God “draws” men to Him, Jesus appeals to the authority of the Scriptures accepted by His hearers.

ἔστιν γεγραμμένον (for this formula of citation, see on 2:17) ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, i.e. presumably in the collection of prophetical books regarded as a single whole (cf. Acts 7:42, 13:40, Lk. 18:31, 24:44).

To be διδακτοὶ θεοῦ is to be “drawn” by God; we have θεοδίδακτοι at 1 Thess. 4:9 (cf. 1 Cor. 2:13, Phil. 3:15, for the idea), and Barnabas (xxi. 6) has the precept γένεσθε θεοδίδακτοι.

πᾶς. Cf. πᾶν, vv. 37, 39. AΓ Δ Θ add οὖν, but om. א B C D L N T W.

ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. The same phrase occurs again 8:26, 40, 15:15. See for the constr. on 1:40.

καὶ μαθών. It is not sufficient for a man to have heard God’s voice; he must also learn, which is a voluntary act. Predestination, in the Johannine doctrine, does not exclude free will or personal responsibility. But every one who has heard the Divine voice, and has learnt its teachings, “comes” to Christ. See on v. 37 for ἔρχεται πρὸς ἐμέ.

46. This “hearing” of God’s voice is, however, not by way of immediate personal communication; it is not “seeing the Father.” Only One has “seen” God (1:18), although it is true, in another sense, that he who has “seen” Jesus has “seen the Father” (14:9).

οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις. So א B C D L N W Θ; the rec. has τις ἑώρακεν. א*D have τὸν θεόν for τόν πατέρα, a reminiscence of 1:18, where see note. Cf. 5:37.

εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, sc. not only He who has been sent by God (see on 3:17), as παρὰ θεοῦ means (1:6, 9:16, 33), but He whose origin is from God; cf. παρὰ πατρός (1:14, where see note), παρʼ αὐτοῦ εἰμι (7:29), παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον (16:27), παρὰ σοῦ ἐξῆλθον (17:8).

οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα. The λόγος was πρὸς τὸν θεόν (1:1); see 8:38 for the things which He has seen παρὰ τῷ πατρί (cf. also 3:32). See on 14:7.

For the repetition (οὗτος) of the subject of the sentence, in the interests of emphasis, cf. 1:2, 7:18, 15:5, and see 10:25.

47. ἀμὴν ἀμήν κτλ. See on 1:51. This opening phrase introduces a saying which is the keynote of the Fourth Gospel, ὁ πιστεύων (used absolutely as at v. 36) ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (cf. 20:31, and see on 3:15).

After ὁ πιστεύων the rec. adds εἰς ἐμέ, with A C DΓ Δ N (from such passages as 3:16, 36); but א B L T WΘ om. εἰς ἐμέ. Jn.’s use of πιστεύειν, without specifying the object of the πίστις, has been noted on 1:7.

The sequence of argument is clear. No one has “seen” the Father but Christ (v. 46); but it suffices to believe in Christ, for such a believer has eternal life (v. 47). As He said later, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9).

48. ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (cf. v. 35). That is, the believer in Christ has eternal life, because He is the spiritual Bread which gives life. Notice the repetition of the main theme, not always in exactly the same words (vv. 35, 41, 48, 51); see on 3:16.

49. The argument in vv. 49–51 is as follows: The manna which nourished the bodily life of the Israelites in the desert, did not secure them from physical death at last (see on v. 58). In this it was like ordinary bread, although divinely given. The Bread of Life, which Jesus offers in His own Person, has not to do with the nourishment of the bodily life, nor does it secure those who believe in Him from the death of the body. But it is the appropriate and divinely given nourishment of man’s spirit, and he who continually feeds on it—that is, he who continually keeps in spiritual touch with Jesus—is secure against spiritual death; he shall live for ever, having assimilated the true Bread of Life.

οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν κτλ. They had said of οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν κτλ. (v. 31), and this is the reply. Jesus does not say “our fathers,” but “your fathers”; cf. Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴπ ὑῶν (8:58). See, however, for the phrase “your law,” on 8:17; and cf. v. 58 below.

ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τὸ μάννα. So B C D T WΘ, but א A L Γ Δ have the order τὸ μάννα ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ as in v. 31.

καὶ ἀπέθανον, sc. of physical death; in v. 50 μὴ ἀποθανῃ refers to spiritual death. See v. 58.

50. οὗτός ἐστιν κτλ., sc. this Bread, which has been mentioned in v. 48, is the Bread which comes down from heaven (as had been said at v. 33; cf. v. 42).

ἵνα τις κτλ., sc. in order that a man may eat of it and so not die, i.e. die spiritually. It is spiritual food for the perpetual nourishment of the spiritual life. Cf. 8:51, 11:26.

For ἀποθάνῃ B has ἀποθνήσκῃ, which Abbott (Diat. 2530) regards as having as good claim to consideration as the true reading. He would translate “… that a man may eat of it, and so be no longer under sentence of death,” comparing, for ἀποθνήσκειν in the present tense, Ps. 82:7, Deut. 17:6. But this is unnecessary, and ἀποθάνῃ is too well attested to be set aside for the variant ἀποθνήσκῃ.

51^a. The first half of this verse repeats what has been said already in v. 50, but in an even more emphatic form. The second half of the verse, as we shall see, introduces a new conception.

ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν, “the Living Bread,” which as itself alive can impart life (see on v. 35 above). ὁ ζῶν, “the Living One,” is the claim of Jesus for Himself in Rev. 1:17; so here ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν is the Bread which is always instinct with Life, which continues to live from age to age. See on 4:10 for the phrase “living water”; and cf. the expressions “living oracles” (Acts 7:38), “living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1), “living hope” (1 Pet. 1:3), and “living stone” (1 Pet. 2:4), which do not, however, present more than verbal resemblances to the phrase “Living Bread” here.

ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς. See on v. 33 above. Here the aorist participle points to the crisis of the Incarnation.

For ἐκ τούτου τοῦ ἄρτου (B CΓ Δ L T W Θ), א has ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ ἄρτου, but this is inconsistent with the sense of the passage. The Living Bread is Jesus Himself.

ἐάν τις φάγῃ κτλ., “if any one eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever,” sc. as God does (cf. Rev. 4:9, 10:6, 15:7, and Deut. 32:40, Ecclus. 18:1). ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is repeated v. 58: the phrase is used of the righteous man, Wisd. 5:15.

There is perhaps an echo of this thought in Barnabas, § 11. Barnabas is speaking of the trees by the river of Ezek. 47:7, 12, and he adds ὃς ἂν φάγῃ ἐξ αὐτῶν ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. But see Introd., p. lxxi.

The rec. (with B C TΓ Δ) has ζήσεται for ζήσει (א D L W Θ 33). There is a similar variant at vv. 57, 58; cf. 5:25, 14:19.

The Third Part of the Discourse: Jesus Will Give the Bread Which is His Flesh for the Life of the World (vv. 51b–59)

51b. The MSS. vary as to the order of the words in the second part of the verse, but the meaning remains unaltered. B C D L T W have the text which we print, while א m support καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν, a less awkward construction. The rec. text has got rid of the awkwardness by reading καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστίν, ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς, the insertion of ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω making all clear.

A new idea is introduced at this point.¹ Hitherto Jesus has spoken of the Bread of Life as coming down from heaven, and of Himself as that Living Bread, giving life to all who feed upon it and appropriate it. Now He goes on to speak of this Bread as His Flesh, and of the feeding upon Him as eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. The transition from the one way of speaking to the other is marked by a change in the tense of the “giving.” The Father gives the heavenly bread (v. 32); it gives life to the world (v. 33). But now Jesus says, “The Bread which I shall give (δώσω) is my Flesh, etc.” (but see on v. 27). Moreover, up to this point (except at v. 27), Jesus has spoken of Himself, as the Bread of Life, coming down from heaven, given by the Father. Now, He speaks of the Bread which He Himself will give for the life of the world, namely His Flesh. Difficult as the Jews had found the thought (v. 41) that Jesus was Himself the heavenly bread, divinely given, for which they had asked (v. 34), they find much greater difficulty in the new and strange suggestion that Jesus was to give them His Flesh to eat (v. 52). And, according to the Gospel as we have it, Jesus then proceeds to develop and enlarge this conception (vv. 53–58).²

καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δέ κτλ. For the constr. καί … δέ, “and, further,” cf. 8:16, 15:27, 1 Jn. 1:3. It introduces a new point, hitherto unmentioned.

ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν, “is my Flesh.” That Christ came “in the flesh” (cf. 1:14, 1 Jn. 4:2, 2 Jn. 7) is the central fact of the Gospel of the Incarnation; that is, He who came down from heaven (v. 50) assumed man’s nature. The gift that is promised is, then, that of His perfect humanity.

This will be given ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς, “on behalf of the world’s life.” See for the force of ὑπέρ and its prevalence in Jn., on 1:30; and for κόσμος, on 1:9. That Christ’s gift of “His Flesh” is on behalf of the world’s life is a saying closely related in meaning to 1:29, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”; cf. also 3:17, 4:42, 1 Jn. 3:16. But the true parallel is 1 Cor. 11:24 τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. As has been pointed out (Introd., p. clxix), the Syriac vss. give here: “The bread which I will give is my Body, for the life of the world”; a rendering also found in the O.L. m, “hic panis quem ego dabo pro huius mundi uita corpus meum est.”

52. The Jewish interlocutors had murmured (v. 41) before this point had been reached; but now they begin to dispute with each other (μάχεσθαι does not occur again in the Gospels) as to the meaning and trustworthiness of the words of Jesus. They were not of one mind (cf. 7:12, 40, 9:16, 10:19); some probably discerning that a spiritual meaning lay behind this mention of the “Flesh” of Jesus.

πῶς δύναται κτλ.; The question is like that of 3:4, 9 (where see note). For οὗτος, “this person,” see on v. 42 above.

After σάρκα B T (with most vss.) insert αὐτοῦ, to elucidate the sense; but om. א C D L Γ Δ Θ. In any case, the meaning is, “How can this person give us his flesh to eat?” Their difficulty was a real one, even if they (or some of them) recognised that the σάρξ represented the whole humanity of Jesus, on which they were to “feed”; for that one human being could impart his nature to another, even spiritually, would be hard to understand.

53. The answer of Jesus repeats (see on 3:5) what He has said already, but in even more difficult terms. For while in v. 51 He spoke only of His Flesh, He now goes on to couple the drinking of His Blood with the eating of His Flesh. Such an expression as “to drink blood” would be especially startling to a Jew, for whom the blood of animals was tabu, and was expressly forbidden to be used as food (Gen. 9:4, Deut. 12:16). The prohibition was based on the doctrine that “the blood is the life” (Deut. 12:23), i.e. that the blood was the seat of the “soul” or נפשׁ, the vital principle.

It should be noted, further, that the use of this expression, as distinct from φαγεῖν τὴν σάρκα, indicates that the Flesh and Blood have been separated, and thus it suggests death, even more definitely than φαγεῖν τὴν σάρκα does.

τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. The form of expression is changed from ἡ σάρξ μου of v. 51, after a fashion frequent in the Johannine discourses. But no new idea is introduced by the change, for “the Son of Man” has already (v. 27) been mentioned as the future giver of the heavenly food. For this title, see Introd., p. cxxx.

οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. The issue of this mystical “eating and drinking” is life, both here and hereafter, as has been said already (v. 51). A little before (v. 47) we had ὁ πιστεύων ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, and the juxtaposition of these affirmations indicates that there is an intimate connexion between the “faith” which is in continual contact with Christ, and that eating and drinking of His Flesh and Blood—the assimilation or appropriation of His humanity—which is the theme of vv. 51b–58. See on 3:15, and cf. 20:31. Here the doctrine is stated negatively, and in an even more startling fashion: “If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in yourselves.” This is the only way to attain to Life.

The Flesh and the Blood are the full Life; their communication is the communication of eternal life. It is possible that Jn.’s insistence on the flesh and blood of Christ has some connexion with his purpose of refuting Docetic doctrines which denied the reality of both (see on 1:14).

54 ff. The sequence of thought is simple. He who feeds on Christ has life, here and hereafter (v. 54), inasmuch as he thus appropriates the life of Christ (v. 56), which is the life of God (v. 57); hence he who feeds on Christ will live for ever (v. 58). The fourfold repetition of ὁ τρώγων … (vv. 54, 56, 57, 58) is thoroughly Johannine in its cadences.

The verb τρώγειν challenges attention. In ordinary Greek, it is used of men eating fruit or vegetables, but no instance has been produced of its use for the eating of flesh (Abbott, Diat. 1710h). It seems to connote eating of delicacies, or eating with enjoyment; and in the only place in the N.T. outside Jn. in which it is found, viz. Mt. 24:38, where the careless ones before the Flood are described as τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες, this suggestion is perhaps involved. Besides the present passage, we have it again at 13:18 (where see note) as a quotation from Ps. 41:9, ἐσθίων of the LXX being altered by Jn. to τρώγων. That is, Jn. always uses this verb of “eating” at the Last Supper or the Eucharist (for this is undoubtedly indicated in vv. 51–58 here), although Mk. and Mt. have ἐσθίειν in their narratives of the Last Supper (Mk. 14:18, 22, Mt. 26:21, 26). The Synoptists use the verb ἐσθίειν 34 times in all, but it never appears in Jn.

τρώγειν is used of spiritual feeding in a remarkable sentence of Irenæus (Hær. iv. xxxviii. 1) which seems to be reminiscent of the present passage. He is speaking of Christ, ὁ ἄρτος ὁ τέλειος τοῦ πατρός, and of His gradual revelation of Himself. First, He offered Himself to us as milk is offered to infants, in order that being thus nourished from the breast of His flesh (ὑπὸ μασθοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ), “we might become accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God (τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ), and contain within ourselves the Bread of immortality (τὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας ἄρτον), which is the Spirit of the Father.”

The language of Ignatius (Rom. 7), in like manner, reproduces words of this chapter: ἄρτον θεοῦ θέλω, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Χριστοῦ … καὶ πόμα θέλω τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ. So Justin (Apol. i. 66) says that the eucharistic elements are Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα. See Introd., p. clxviii.

54. ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα (the whole phrase is repeated verbatim in v. 56) seems to mean, “he who continually feeds with enjoyment upon my Flesh and continually drinks my Blood,” or “he who is in the habit of feeding, etc.,” for the present participles must be given their force. See above on v. 29.

ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (sc. in the present), κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρα, which is the promise of life in the future. The twofold assurance is repeated from v. 40, the difference being that while there it is for him who has spiritual vision of Christ and believes in Him, here it is given to the man who “eats His Flesh and drinks His Blood.” See above on v. 53.

For the refrain κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, see on v. 39, and cf. Introd., p. clxvii.

The rec. text inserts ἐν before ἐσχάτῃ, but om. א B D Θ. See on v. 39.

ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου (cf. v. 51) ἀληθής ἐστιν βρῶσις, “for my Flesh is true meat,” sc. it is really to be eaten, and it nourishes as meat ought to do. For βρῶσις of the thing eaten, see on 4:32.

καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου κτλ., “and my Blood is true drink.” The verse is a comment on, and corroboration of, the assurance of v. 54.

56. ὁ τρώγων … τὸ αἷμα is repeated from v. 54, the reason for that promise being now given. The man who spiritually feeds on Christ “abides in Him,” and so he has the assurance of eternal life.

μένειν is a favourite word with Jn., and he uses it much more frequently than the Synoptists do. They have not the phrase “to abide in Christ,” or “in God,” which is thoroughly characteristic of Johannine doctrine. This phrase is used in a general mystical sense in 1 Jn. 2:6, 27, 28, 3:6, 24, 4:12, 16; but in the Fourth Gospel it is found only here and at 15:4–7, both passages having reference to the Eucharist (see on 15:1), the purpose of which is that “we may dwell in Him, and He in us” (cf. 15:4). In Jn. the one “abiding” involves the other, and to this thought reference is made several times (15:5, 1 Jn. 3:24, 4:13, 16; cf. 14:20, and see on 5:38).

The external token of a man’s “abiding” in Christ, is that he keeps His commandments (1 Jn. 3:24); and, as to love God and to love man are the great commandments, he that abides in love abides in God (1 Jn. 4:16)¹ More generally, he that abides in Christ ought to walk after His example (1 Jn. 2:6); in other words, he “bears fruit” (15:2). Of one who has perfectly realised this “abiding,” it is said “he sinneth not” (1 Jn. 3:6). Such an one has the secret of efficacious prayer (15:7). He has life (6:57), and naturally will have confidence at the Great Parousia (1 Jn. 2:28).

D adds after αὐτῷ: καθὼς ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί (cf. 14:10). ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ λάβητε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὡς τὸν ἄρτον τῆς ζωῆς, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν αὐτῷ. This interpolation² is supported by aff². With D’s substitution of λάβητε τὸ σῶμα for φάγητε τὴν σάρκα (v. 53), compare its substitution of λάβητε for φάγητε in v. 53.

57. For ἀπέστειλεν, D has ἀπέσταλκε (Cf. 20:21, 1 Jn. 4:9); the aor. marks a definite moment, viz. that of the Incarnation. For the “sending” of Jesus by the Father, see on 3:17.

καθὼς is a favourite conjunction with Jn. The constr. καθὼς … κἀγώ, which we find here, cannot always be interpreted in the same way. Thus at 15:9, 17:18 and 20:21 we must render, “As the Father loved (or sent) me, so I loved (or send) you.” On the other hand, at 17:21 καθὼς … κἀγώ plainly stands for “As Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee.” In the present verse, the sequence of thought requires the latter interpretation, viz. “As the Living Father hath sent me, and I live because of the Father,” then it follows that “he that eateth me shall live because of me.” See further on 10:15.

The form of the principal sentence καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με … καὶ ὁ τρώγων κτλ. must also be observed. It appears again 13:15, 33, 1 Jn. 2:6, 4:17, of the comparison between the life of the Incarnate Christ and that of believers. It is not καθὼς … οὓτως, for the comparison or parallelism can never be exact or complete; it is καθὼς … καί, “As Christ … so (in a sense) even those who are His.” See on 17:18.

ὁ ζῶν πατήρ is a phrase unique in the N.T.; but cf. ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ (5:26, where see note). “The living God” is a title found both in O.T. and N.T., e.g. Deut. 5:26, Mt. 16:16, Acts 14:15, 2 Cor. 6:16.

The meaning of this passage is, then, as follows: As the Father, who is the Fount of Life, has sent Christ on earth, and as Christ’s life is derived from and dependent on the Divine Life, so the believer who “eats” Christ, that is, who is in continual communion with Him, assimilates His life and thus lives in dependence on Him. διὰ τοῦ πατρός would mean that the Father was the Agent; but διὰ τὸν πατέρα signifies that He is the spring and source of the Life of the Son.

διά with the accusative may mean either (1) for the sake of …, or (2) thanks to … For (1) Wetstein quotes διʼ ὑμᾶς μόνους ζῆν ἐθέλω,” “I wish to live for your sakes,” sc. to do you favours (Dio Cassius, lxxvii. iii. 2); and Abbott (Diat. 2705) adds several examples from Epictetus, e.g. ἔξελθε διὰ τὰ παιδία, “escape for the sake of the children” (Epict. iv. i. 163). This use of διά will not suit the context here. That the Life of Christ was διὰ τὸν πατέρα, “for the Father’s sake,” sc. to do His Will, is true (cf. 4:34), but the argument requires the conception that the Life of Christ is derived from and due to the Life of God. (2) For this sense of διά, Abbott (Diat. 2297b) quotes Plutarch, Vit. Alex. § 8: Alexander said he owed life to his father, but good life to Aristotle διʼ ἐκεῖνον μὲν ζῶν, διὰ τοῦτον δὲ καλῶς ζῶν. This is a close parallel to the use of διά in the present passage. Christ lives, διὰ τὸν πατέρα, “thanks to the Father,” as sharing the Father’s Life;¹ and believers live διʼ αὐτόν, “thanks to Him.” The meaning, then, of ἐκεῖνος ζήσει διʼ ἐμέ is, practically, the same as that of the related passage 1 Jn. 4:9 τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα ζήσωμεν διʼ αὐτοῦ, where διά takes the genitive. See on 15:3.

Godet’s comment brings out the general sense excellently: “As the infinite life of nature can only be appropriated by man so far as it is concentrated in a fruit or a morsel of bread; so the divine life is only put within our reach so far as it is incarnate in the Son of Man. It is thus that He is to us all the Bread of Life. But as we have to appropriate and assimilate bread to obtain life through it; so also must we incorporate the Person of the Son of Man by an inward act of faith, which is the way of spiritual manducation. By thus feeding on Him who lived by God, we live by God Himself and henceforth actually live as Jesus does.”

καὶ ὁ τρώγων με …, “even so, he who eateth me.” The metaphor of eating Christ’s “Flesh and Blood” is dropped; it is the feeding on Himself, the communion with His Person, that is the essential thing.

For ζήσει (א B C²L T N Θ), the rec. has ζήσεται with Γ Δ (cf. v. 51).

κἀκεῖνος ζήσει διʼ ἐμέ. The life promised here is that ζωὴ αἰώνιος which begins in the present; the parallel saying of 14:19 ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσεσθε, has special reference to the future. See on 11:25, and cf. Introd., p. clxi.

58. This verse contains a summary of the whole discourse, and so it goes back to the saying about the heavenly Bread (v. 33), ending with what was said in v. 51, that he who feeds on it shall live for ever. Jn.’s report of the words of Jesus often passes without pause into his own comments (see on 3:16), and it has been suggested (Abbott, Diat. 1957) that v. 58 was intended to be the evangelist’s short statement of what has gone before. But if so, ταῦτα εἶπεν in v. 59 is clumsy. We can hardly separate v. 58 from what precedes, despite some slight changes in the form of expression, which are duly noted below. As has already been said (p. cxvi), Jn. is prone to vary words and the order of words when reiterating something already recorded.

οὗτός ἐστιν κτλ., repeated from v. 50, except that here the aor. participle καταβάς is used (as in v. 51) of the descent from heaven of the mystical Bread. For the rec. ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (א D L N W Γ Δ Θ), B C T have ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, and this may be right; but on the six previous occurrences of the phrase “descending from heaven” (vv. 33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51), τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is the best-supported reading.

οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον κτλ., repeated, with slight variations, from v. 49. The sentence is a good example of Jn.’s partiality for the constr. called anacoluthon.

For οὐ καθώς, cf. 14:27, 1 Jn. 3:12; the only other occurrence in the N.T. being 2 Cor. 8:5.

οἱ πατέρες. The rec. with DΔ N Θ and Syr. sin. adds ὑμῶν (from v. 49); om. א B C L T W. The expression οἱ πατέρες occurs again, in the words of Christ, at 7:22, where it refers to the patriarchs. It also is found Acts 13:32, Rom. 9:5, 11:28, 15:8, Heb. 1:1, 2 Pet. 3:4, and is used quite vaguely of the Israelites of the olden time. Here it is limited by the context to the generation of the Exodus from Egypt. But no distinction is to be drawn between οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν of v. 49 and οἱ πατέρες of v. 58 (cf., e.g., Acts 13:32 and Acts 26:6).

Some minor uncials add τὸ μάννα after οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν, from v. 49.

καὶ ἀπέθανον. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr., on 6:39) cites a Jewish saying, “The generation in the wilderness have no part in the world to come,” and if this were pre-Christian in date (which is uncertain) it would suggest that καὶ ἀπέθανον should be interpreted of spiritual death. But we have already seen (v. 49) that the argument requires it to indicate the death of the body, from which even the manna could not save those who ate it.

ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. This is repeated from v. 51, with the substitution of ὁ τρώγων with the acc. for ἐάν τις φάγῃ with ἐκ and the gen.

59. For the site of Capernaum, see on 2:12. The synagogue at Capernaum (built by the centurion, Lk. 7:5) was the place where Jesus gave His first public instruction (Mk. 1:21; cf. Lk. 4:31f.).¹ That it was His habit to teach in country synagogues is clear; cf. Mk. 1:39, 3:1, Mt. 4:23, 9:35, 12:9, 13:54; and see Jn. 18:20, the only other place where the word συναγώγη occurs in Jn.

ἐν συναγωγῇ, “in synagogue,” as we say “in church.” D prefixes the article τῇ before συν., but incorrectly; cf. 18:20. D also adds σαββάτῳ, and this may possibly be a gloss which has tradition behind it. Sabbath synagogue services were those at which instruction was usually given, although there were services on Mondays and Thursdays as well. On the other hand, the narrative represents a crowd as following Jesus across the lake, which would involve more travelling than was regarded as right on the Sabbath day.

60. πολλοί … ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, including not only the Twelve, but those who were of the outer circle of His disciples (cf. v. 66, and see on 2:2); some of the Twelve may well have been among those who found the teaching of Jesus difficult.

σκληρός is not used again by Jn. It means harsh or hard to accept (not difficult to understand; cf. Gen. 21:11 and Jude 15).

τίς δύναται αὐτοῦ ἀκούειν; “Who can hear it?” sc. with appreciation. See on 3:8 for ἀκούειν with a genitive in Jn.

What was the harsh or strange saying to which the questioners referred? The whole of the discourse from v. 51 onward might be described as σκληρός, and exception had already been taken to the early part of it: “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (v. 52). But the statement which seems to be challenged particularly at this point is v. 58, “This is the Bread which descended from heaven; he that eats of it shall live for ever”; which Jesus applied to Himself, for the answer in v. 62 has special reference to it. What would they say if they saw Him ascending? Flesh cannot give eternal life, but spirit can do so.

61. εἰδὼς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν ἑαυτῷ. See on 2:25 for the insight of Jesus into men’s thoughts.

For γογγύζουσιν, see on v. 41 above, where the murmurers were “the Jews”; here they include some of the disciples of Jesus.

τοῦτο ὑμᾶς σκανδαλίζει; “Does this offend you?” σκανδαλίζειν occurs in Jn. again only at 16:1, but it is a common Synoptic word.

62. ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε κτλ. The passage is an aposiopesis, the apodosis being omitted. “If then you should see the Son of Man (see on 1:51) ascending where He was before (will you be offended?).” We should expect τί οὖν ἐὰν θεωρῆτε κτλ., and the omission of τί is awkward. But the meaning is hardly doubtful. Jesus does not imply that those addressed would certainly see the Ascension, but that it was a possibility. According to Lk., the Eleven were witnesses of the Ascension (Lk. 24:51, Acts 1:9), and they were among those to whom Jesus was here speaking in reply to doubts (see on v. 60). θεωρεῖν (see on 2:23) is used here of bodily vision; and ἀναβαίνειν is used again of the Ascension 20:17 (cf. 3:13, Eph. 4:10, Acts 2:34).

τὸ πρότερον, “before,” is rare in the N.T.; but cf. 9:8 and Gal. 4:13.

ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον. The Personality of the Lord remained unchanged through His Incarnation and subsequent Ascension. Here is suggested the pre-existence of the “Son of Man,” as before at 3:13, where see note.

The meaning of vv. 62, 63 is best brought out if we take them in connexion with v. 58 (cf. v. 51), which had seemed to the hearers of Jesus to be hard of acceptance. He had said two things: (1) that He was the Bread which came down from heaven, and (2) that the man who ate of it should live for ever. There are two distinct points of difficulty, and they are taken separately.

(1) That One moving among men in the flesh had descended from heaven seemed incredible, but is it not still less credible that He should ascend to heaven? Yet the former had happened (in the Incarnation); the latter will happen at the Ascension, and some of those present might be there to see it.

(2) There is a real difficulty in believing that the eating of “bread” or “flesh” (v. 52) can give life for ever (v. 58). “The flesh profiteth nothing.” Flesh cannot transcend its own limitations. But to those who feed on the Flesh of the Son of Man, He will impart eternal life (v. 57), for although He “became flesh” (1:14), His origin and essential being is spiritual, and it is the characteristic of spirit to give life: τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦν. This is the promise to all future believers (see on 7:39). The words which He had spoken to them, and to which they took exception, are Spirit and Life: these are the key words of His teaching about Himself and His salvation.

Some commentators, e.g. Meyer of a former generation, and Abbott (Diat. 2211b), take ἀναβαίνειν in this verse as referring to the Death of Jesus, as the beginning of His passage from the earthly to the heavenly sphere. But the usage of the verb in the N.T. is decisive against this. It never refers to the Crucifixion, but to the Ascension, and it provides a notable illustration of Jn.’s manner of writing, that here and at 20:17 he introduces an allusion to the Ascension of Christ, whilst he does not state explicitly that it took place.

63. τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦν. See for ζωοποιεῖν as applied to the work of Christ, 5:21; and note 1 Cor. 15:45.

The contrast between flesh and spirit has already been before us in 3:6, where see the note; cf. also Mk. 14:38, 1 Pet. 3:18, 4:6.

ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν, “flesh avails nothing.” For ὠφελεῖν, cf. 12:19. There is no contradiction with what has been said before (v. 51), for Jesus does not say “my flesh” here. In every case is it true that flesh, without spirit, cannot quicken to eternal life.¹

τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα. So א B C D L N W Θ, as against λαλῶ of the rec. text. The “words” in question are the words of the preceding discourse. For τὰ ῥήματα (never in the sing. in Jn.), see on 3:34. The ῥήματα of Christ are words of God (8:47, 17:8), and as such belong to the sphere of spiritual realities, for God is Spirit (4:24), and of essential being, that is, of true life. They are spirit and they are life.

64. But although His words were words of life, they were life only to those who believed, and so Jesus adds ἀλλʼ εἰσὶν ἐξ ὑμῶν τινες οἳ οὐ πιστεύουσιν. πιστεύειν is used absolutely, as at vv. 36, 47 (see on 1:7).

Jn. is prone to comment on sayings or actions of Jesus that might not be easy for a reader to understand,² and here he adds ᾔδει γάρ κτλ. (cf. 3:16), to emphasise the point that Jesus had not been speaking great words of mystery (vv. 62, 63) without realising that some among His hearers could not appropriate them.

ᾔδει γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ Ἰη. ἐξ ἀρχῆς occurs in the N.T. only here and at 16:4, although it is found in the LXX (e.g. Isa. 40:21, 41:26, where it means “from the beginning of things”); but we have seen on v. 38 that ἀπό and ἐκ are not always distinguishable in Jn. He uses ἐξ ἀρχῆς as equivalent to ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς (א reads ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς), which occurs 15:27, 1 Jn. 2:7, 24, 3:11 (but cf. 1 Jn. 1:1) in the same sense as here, viz. “from the time when Jesus first drew disciples round Him.” From the moment when He began to observe their characters, He distinguished unerringly those who were faithful from those who were not (see 2:24). That Jn. means his readers to understand that from the moment of his call, Judas was known by Jesus to be the man who would betray Him is not certain. If that be his meaning, the passage provides a remarkable instance of Jn.’s doctrine of predestination (see on 2:4, and especially on 13:18). But we need not press ἐξ ἀρχῆς so far that we must suppose that Jesus chose Judas as one of the Twelve, being conscious at the time that he would be a traitor; that would make the choice difficult to explain, in connexion with the true humanity of Christ. If the knowledge that Judas was untrustworthy came as soon as Jesus had studied him at close quarters, then ἐξ ἀρχῆς is adequately interpreted. In any case, Jn. takes care, both here and in c. 13, to repudiate the idea that the treachery of Judas took Jesus by surprise.

τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν. Abbott notes (Diat. 2510) that ὁ παραδώσων (D has ὁ παραδίδους) is the only instance in Jn. of a future participle with the article.

The meaning of παραδιδόναι is often misunderstood, as Abbott (Paradosis passim) has shown at length. It means at “to deliver up,” but not necessarily “to betray.” Thus it is used of the Jews giving up Jesus to Pilate (18:30, 35, 36, 19:11), and of Pilate giving up Jesus to be crucified (19:16), and also of Jesus “giving up” His spirit, i.e. dying, on the cross (19:30). In none of these passages is treachery connoted or implied; and thus in the passages where παραδιδόναι is applied to the action of Judas (6:71, 12:4, 13:2, 11, 21, 18:2, 5, 21:20) we are not entitled to render it “betray.” προδιδόναι (a verb not found in the Gospels, although Lk. 6:16 calls Judas προδότης, as he undoubtedly was) is “to betray,” but παραδιδόναι is simply “to deliver up,” and is a colourless word not conveying any suggestion of blame.

Jn. does not record any early predictions by Jesus that He would be “delivered up” to the Jews, as the Synoptists do (cf. Mk. 9:31, 10:33). In Jn. Jesus Himself does not use the word παραδιδόναι until 13:21.

65. καὶ ἔλεγεν. Jn. occasionally uses ἔλεγεν of the utterances of Jesus (2:21, 22, 5:18, 6:6, 71, 8:27, 31, 12:33), and the force of the impft. tense must not be missed. Here reference is made to the saying of v. 44, a cardinal doctrine in Jn. (cf. v. 37 and 3:27), viz. that the impulse to faith comes in the first instance from God; there were some who did not believe (v. 64), and one who would be a traitor among them, but this did not surprise Jesus. “He was saying” (all the while) that it was a fundamental principle that God must “draw” a man to Christ. See Abbott (Diat. 2467), who, however, holds that in all cases a saying preceded by ἔλεγεν is mysterious and not understood by the hearers. This can hardly be sustained; see, e.g., 6:6.

διὰ τοῦτο εἴρηκα. This was the reason why He had given the warning of v. 44 (where see the note). He wished to anticipate criticism based on the non-success of His teaching with some people. For διὰ τοῦτο, see on 5:16.

ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. The rec. adds μου, but om. א B C*D L T W Θ (see on v. 44).

The Defection of Many Disciples: The Steadfastness of the Twelve, as Indicated in the Confession of Peter (vv. 66–71)

Verses 66–71 form the conclusion of Part I. of the Gospel. Hitherto the mission of Jesus has been accepted by many disciples, and has appeared to be full of hope (2:23, 4:1, 39, 45, 6:2). But He had not trusted Himself to all these adherents, for “He knew what was in man” (2:25). When the reach and difficulty of His doctrine begin to be realised, there is a falling away of disciples. Only the Twelve remain (and even of these one will be unfaithful). Here, at the end of c. 6, is the note of failure, suggested for the first time at v. 26. Henceforth the record is to be of a growing hate, culminating in rejection (see on 12:36b).¹

66. ἐκ τούτου, “thereupon.” The great defection began at this point, and its immediate cause was the nature of the teaching which had been given. Cf. 19:12. ἐκ τούτου in a causal sense is common in the papyri.²

οὖν is added after ἐκ τούτου by א D Θ and fam. 13, but is unnecessary and is om. by B C L T N W. τογτογπολλοι might easily become τογτογπολλοι, and thus οὖν would get into the text (see Tischendorf, in loc.).

πολλοὶ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ. B T insert ἐκ before τῶν μαθ., but om. א C D L W Θ. Cf. v. 60; and see on 1:40, 6:71, 12:4.

τῶν μαθητῶν refers to the outer circle of disciples (see on 2:2), which would include the Twelve, although none of the Twelve failed Jesus at this point. A tradition ascribed to Hippolytus says that Mark and Luke were among the “seventy disciples who were scattered by the offence of the words of Christ,” Jn. 6:53 being quoted loosely.³

ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, a phrase used again 18:6. They withdrew or retreated from association with Jesus. For εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω in a figurative sense, cf. Ps. 44:18.

οὐκέτι μετʼ αὐτοῦ περιεπάτουν, “they walked no more with Him,” a phrase which vividly suggests the itinerant character of His ministry. Cf. 7:1, 11:54; and for the larger sense of περιπάτειν, see on 8:12.

67. εἶπεν … τοῖς δώδεκα. This is the first time that “the Twelve” are mentioned by Jn. (cf. v. 13). He introduces this familiar designation without having given any account of their being set apart by Jesus, as the Synoptists do (Mk. 3:14). So, too, he brings in Pilate (18:29) and Mary Magdalene (19:25), without explaining who they were. This is a feature of his way of writing: he assumes, on the part of his readers, an acquaintance with the story of Christ’s ministry (cf. p. xciv).

Jn. mentions “the Twelve” by this collective designation only 4 times (cf. vv. 70, 71, and 20:24), and in every case there is a suggestion of desertion or unbelief in the context.

μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς θέλετε ὑπάγειν; “Would you also go away?” The form of the question, μὴ καὶ …, suggests that a negative answer is expected. Cf. 7:47, 52, 9:40, 18:17, 25; and see 21:5, the only other place in the Gospel where an interrogation beginning with μή is put into the mouth of Jesus.

ὑπάγειν, “to go away,” is a favourite word with Jn. It is applied to the disciples here and at 15:16. See on 7:33 and 16:7.

68. The Confession of Peter here recorded is not to be distinguished from the similar confession narrated by the Synoptists (Mk. 8:27f., Mt. 16:13f., Lk. 9:18f.), although the details are different. The crisis in the Lord’s public ministry which called it forth took place, according to Lk. as well as according to Jn., some time after the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mk., followed by Mt., places it a little later, after the Feeding of the Four Thousand). Jn. says that the place was Capernaum, while Mk. and Mt. give Cæsarea Philippi, 30 miles to the north; Lk. does not give any indication of place. In all the Synoptists, the Confession of Peter was followed by the first prediction by Jesus of His Passion. There is no indication of this in Jn., who does not assign to any particular crisis the first announcement by Jesus that He was to suffer. Cf. 3:13, 14, 6:53, 8:28, 12:23, 25, 13:31; and see Introd., p. 131. But in Jn., as in the Synoptists, the faithfulness of the apostles, for whom Peter was spokesman, as contrasted with the defection or incredulity of many in the outer circle of the Lord’s followers, is brought out clearly.

Σίμων Πέτρος. This is the only place in Jn. where Peter is represented as speaking on behalf of the rest, although he appears later as foremost to question or to intervene (cf. 13:6, 24, 36, 20:2).

πρὸς τίνα ἀπελευσόμεθα; At an earlier stage, Peter had said, “Depart from me” (Lk. 5:8), but that was only a hasty word of humility. The question μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς θέλετε ὑπάγειν; is answered by another question.

Peter’s Confession is twofold in Jn.’s version. (1) “Thou hast words of eternal life”; this is the acceptance of Jesus as Prophet. (2) “Thou art the Holy One of God”; that is the recognition of Him as the Priest of humanity.

ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἔχεις. The immediate reference is to v. 63, and the teaching of v. 58. “Thou hast words (not the words) of eternal life,” i.e. words which give eternal life, or the knowledge of it; see on v. 35 for the phrase “the Bread of Life.” For ῥήματα, see on v. 63; and cf. Acts 5:20 πάντα τὰ πἥματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης. For ζωὴ αἰώνιος, see on 3:15; and cf. vv. 27, 40. This is a favourite expression of Jn., who puts into his own accustomed phraseology Peter’s confession of trust in Jesus.

69. καὶ ἡμεῖς (emphatic; we, at least, the chosen Twelve) πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κτλ. The order of verbs is different at 1 Jn. 4:16 ἡμεῖς ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν; cf. 17:8 ἔγνωσαν … καὶ ἐπίστευσαν. But, while Jn. does not lay down formulæ as to the relative precedence of faith and knowledge in regard to the things of the spirit, his teaching is nearer the credo ut intelligam of the saints than the intelligo ut credam of the philosophers. The apostles had “believed” in Jesus, and therefore they “knew” who He was. So, at any rate, Jn. makes Peter say. See on 3:36, and cf. 11:27.

σὺ εἶ. Cf. the Confession of Nathanael, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (1:49). The Confession of Peter does not really transcend either this or the announcement of Andrew εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν (1:41). The Synoptic presentation of a gradual development of spiritual insight on the part of the followers of Jesus, in accordance with which it was only after a time and not all at once that they recognised Him as the Christ, has no place in Jn.’s narrative.¹ His purpose in writing the Gospel is to convince men that Jesus is the Christ (20:31), and the stages by which he, or others, reached this supreme conviction he does not stay to record.

ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. This is, undoubtedly, the true reading (א B C*D L W). The rec. (with N Θ) has ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, which is the reading of Mt. 16:16, and has naturally crept into the text here, by assimilation. Cf. also the confession of Martha, ἐγὼ πεπίστευκα ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (11:27).

ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ is the designation of Jesus by the unclean spirit of Mk. 1:24, Lk. 4:34. It is not a Johannine phrase, but may be taken here to mean Him whom God consecrated as the Christ (cf. ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν, 10:36). Cf. Acts 3:14, 4:27, 30. ἅγιος θεοῦ is used of a Nazirite at Judg. 13:7, 16:17; and cf. ἅγιος κυρίου of Aaron at Ps. 106:16. See 17:11 πάτερ ἅγιε.

The commendation of Peter in response to his Confession, which is recorded by Mt. 16:17, has no place in the other Gospels, and it does not appear here. But perhaps a reminiscence of it has already been recorded at 1:42, where see note.

70. Peter had spoken for the rest of the apostles as well as for himself, and Jesus understands this to be so. “He answered them,” ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς (D om. αὐτοῖς). After αὐτοῖς, א B C D N L W Θ have ὁ Ἰησοῦς, but om. ΔΔ.

οὐκ ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς κτλ., “Was it not I (ἐγώ being emphatic) who chose you, the Twelve?” (for οἱ δώδεκα, see on v. 67). Cf. Lk. 6:13 ἐκλεξάμενος ἀπʼ αὐτῶν δώδεκα, and also Jn. 13:18 and 15:16 οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε, ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς. The Twelve, the leaders of the new Israel, chosen to be the intimate companions of Jesus, were deliberately selected by Him from a larger number of disciples and followers. See on v. 64.

Peter had spoken for the Twelve, and Judas did not dissociate himself from the great Confession of v. 69. None of the others suspected that he was less trustworthy than they. But Jesus, although he does not reveal who the traitor is, warns them that they are not all of one mind. “Of you,” even of you whom I chose, “one is a devil.”

διάβολος is an “accuser” (the word is applied to Haman, the Jews’ enemy, in Esth. 7:4, 8:1), but is used by Jn. always for Satan or one inspired by Satan (8:44, 13:2, 1 Jn. 3:8, 10). At 13:2 Jn. says that ὁ διάβολος put the idea of treachery into the heart of Judas, and at 13:27 that “Satan entered into him.” One thus inspired is, himself, a “devil.” Here the process of moral deterioration had only begun, but Jesus detected its beginnings. He observed that Judas was “giving place to the devil” (Eph. 4:27). See on 12:4.

Some have found here a reminiscence of the rebuke to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan” (Mk. 8:33), which followed quickly upon his confession of faith, the idea being that the designation of Peter as Satan in the earlier record is here transferred to Judas, against whom Jn. had a special animus (see on 12:6). But this lacks both evidence and probability.

71. ἔλεγεν δέ κτλ., “but He was speaking of …,” a quite classical use of ἔλεγε. See on v. 65 above.

Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου. ΝΓΔ support Ἰσχαριώτην of the rec. text, but א^cB C L W give the genitive, “Iscariot” being the appellation of Simon, the father of Judas. For Ἰσκαριώτου, א*Θ and fam. 13 give the interpretative reading ἀπὸ Καρυώτου (see also 12:4, 13:2, 26, 14:22 in D). Judas was the son of Simon, who was a man of Kerioth, אִישׁ קְרִיוֹת, and thus both Judas (see 12:4, 13:2) and his father Simon (cf. 13:26) were called “Iscariot.” Kerioth may be the place called Kerioth-hezron (in Judah) at Josh. 15:25, or may be Kerioth in Moab (Jer. 48:24); but in any case it was not in Galilee, so that Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a Galilæan. This explanation of the surname “Iscariot” is suggested in Jn. only, there being no hint of it in the Synoptists.¹

ἔμελλεν (א B C L N W Θ) is to be preferred to the rec. ἤμελλεν.

οὗτος γὰρ ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι αὐτόν. Cf. 12:4 ὁ μέλλων αὐτὸν παραδιδόναι. μέλλειν may express simple futurity only (4:47), or it may connote intention (6:6, 14:22); but it may also carry with it the idea of predestined inevitableness, the thought of which is often present to Jn. (see on 2:4, 3:14). It would be quite in Jn.’s manner to describe Judas as he who was destined to deliver Jesus up to His enemies. Cf. Mt. 17:22 μέλλει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοσθαι, where μέλλει certainly connotes inevitableness. For other instances of μέλλειν in Jn., cf. 7:35, 39, 11:51, 12:33, 18:32, the exact shade of meaning being not always certain.

εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα. After εἷς, א C²Γ D N W Θ ins. ὤν, but om. B C*D L. The Synoptists apply the phrase “one of the Twelve” to Judas only, and to him only in connexion with the Betrayal. But Jn. applies it also to Thomas (20:24), the description always indicating surprise that one so favoured as to be of the chosen companions of Jesus should be either incredulous or unfaithful (see on v. 67 above).

It has been pointed out on 1:40 that Jn. prefers the form εἷς ἐκ to εἷς only when followed by a gen. plur., whereas the Synoptists generally omit ἐκ. Westcott suggests that ἐκ in the present passage marks “the unity of the body to which the unfaithful member belonged.” But this is too subtle an inference from what is only a habit of style; cf. εἷς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (Jn. 12:4).

A. Wright (Synopsis, p. 31) suggests that ὁ εἶς τῶν δώδεκα, applied to Judas (Mk. 14:10), means “the chief of the Twelve,” and compares τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων (Mk. 16:2). It is difficult to believe that ὁ εἷς; could be written for ὁ πρῶτος; or that an evangelist writing many years after the event, when the name of Judas had been held up to opprobrium for a generation, should call him “the chief of the Twelve,” without adding any qualifying words. See, for the precedence of Judas, on 13:23.

5:1. The conclusion of Part I.¹ tells of the continued faithfulness of the Twelve (6:67, 68); and it can hardly be doubted that they went up to Jerusalem for the Passover as well as Jesus on this occasion. Hence, behind the story of the cure of the impotent man (5:2–9) there may have been the original testimony of some who were present. And inasmuch as in the Fourth Gospel μετὰ ταῦτα is the phrase which seems to mark the beginning of a new set of reminiscences dictated by John the son of Zebedee to the future evangelist,² it is quite possible that the witness of John is behind cc. 5 and 7:15–24, allowing for evangelical commentary and expansion in 5:20–30.³

ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, i.e. the Passover, which has already been mentioned in 6:4 as near at hand. This was probably the Passover of the year 28.⁴

א C L D read ἡ ἑορτή, but the article is rightly omitted by A B D N WΘ. Its insertion is readily explained by the preceding ἦν. If ἡ ἑορτή were the true reading, the reference ought to be to the Feast of Tabernacles, which was pre-eminently the feast of the Jews. One minor uncial (Λ) for τῶν Ἰουδαίων reads τῶν ἀζύμων, rightly identifying the feast as that of “unleavened bread,” i.e. the Passover.

καὶ ἀνέβη ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα. The Passover was a feast of obligation, and so Jesus went up (ἀνέβη, the regular word for going up to the metropolis; cf. 2:13); but, as it seems, He went up privately and unaccompanied by His disciples. There had been danger of popular enthusiasm (6:15), which, if exhibited at Jerusalem, would have caused trouble. So it appears that He went up without making it known who He was; even the man whom He healed did not know His name (v. 13). His disciples, i.e. the Twelve, may have gone up to the feast, as would become pious men, but they do not seem to have been in attendance upon Jesus.

2. ἔστιν δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἰεροσολύμοις. The present tense (instead of ἦν, as at 4:6) has been taken, e.g. by Bengel,¹ as proof that the Fourth Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; but this would be a precarious inference, even if it were not ruled out on other grounds. An old man looking back on the city as he knew it, might naturally say “is,” especially if he had in mind a pool or spring. The Sinai Syriac changes “is” to “was,” and so does Nonnus.

κολυμβήθρα (from κολυμβάω, I dive) is a pool deep enough to swim in; It occurs again in N.T. only at 9:7 of the Pool of Siloam, but is a LXX word.

ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ is the best attested reading (B CΔ N W), and it would mean that the pool was “by the sheep gate” or “by the sheep market,” the adj. προβατικῇ requiring a substantive to be supplied. In Neh. 3:1, 12:39 mention is made of the building of ἡ πύλη ἡ προβατική, which is believed to have been north-east of the Temple, and close to the present St. Stephen’s Gate, by which flocks from the country enter Jerusalem.

א^cA D L Θ have the aberrant reading ἐν τῇ προβατικῇ which some Latin vss. perversely render in inferiorem partem. The Western reading προβατικὴ κολυμβήθρα, “a sheep pool,” is supported by א* 61, Eusebius, and others.

It appears, then, that ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρα must be adopted. But it has been suggested¹ that behind προβατική lies the Aramaic פְּרוֹבָטַיָא, which means a bath; and then the original text would have been, “There is a pool at the Bath, which is called in Hebrew Bethzatha (House of the Olive?).”

The situation of this pool is as uncertain as its exact name. There are twin pools north of the Temple area, near the fortress of Antonia, which Schick identified with the κολυμβήθρα of the text, but it is doubtful if these existed before the destruction of the Temple. Others have identified the “Pool of Bethzatha” with the “Pool of Siloam” (9:7); but they seem to be specially distinguished by the evangelist. Many writers are inclined to find the Pool of Bethzatha in the Virgin’s Well, anciently called Gihon, i.e. “the Gusher,” which is periodically subject to a bubbling of its waters caused by a natural spring. This is south of the Temple, in the Valley of Kidron, and we believe it to be the most probable site of “Bethzatha.”

ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη Ἑβραϊστὶ Βηθζαθά. Ἑβραϊστί occurs only in Jn. 5:2, 19:13, 17, 20, 20:16 and Rev. 9:11, 16:16; it signifies not the classical Hebrew of the O.T., but the Aramaic in common use. See on 1:38 for instances of Jn.’s habit of giving the Hebrew name of a person or place, along with a Greek equivalent. Here and at 19:13, 17 he describes the place first in Greek, and then adds its Aramaic designation: he is not interpreting the Aramaic name (see on 4:25).

πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα. These would have been cloisters or arched spaces round the pool similar to those which are found in India near tanks. Schick claimed that such were to be seen at the twin pools which he discovered; but this has not been generally admitted.¹ Those who interpret the narrative symbolically, find the Five Books of Moses in the “five porches.” We have already considered this method of interpreting Jn.² While symbolic meanings may easily be read into the narrative once written, there is no probability that it was originally constructed in so artificial a fashion.

3. The picture of the sick people lying under the covered arcades (it would have been too cold at the Passover season to lie out in the open air) waiting for the bubbling up of the intermittent spring, which was supposed to have healing properties, is most natural and vivid.

κατέκειτο. The verb does not appear again in Jn. The rec. text inserts πολύ after πλῆθος,, but om. א B C D L W.

τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν, “blind, halt, withered.” ξηροί were those who had atrophied limbs (cf. Mt. 12:10, Lk. 6:8). The Western text (D a b) adds παραλυτικῶν, but this is only a gloss explanatory of ξηρῶν: om. א A*B C*L W Θ.

After ξηρῶν, παραλυτικῶν, the rec. adds ἐκδεχομένων τῆν τοῦ ὓδατος κίνησιν. This, again, is a Western (and Syrian) amplification; it is omitted by א A*B C*L, although supported by D W Γ Δ Θ syrr. It was suggested by the mention in v. 7 of the disturbance of the healing waters.

4. Verse 4, like the words ἐκδεχομένων … κίνησιν, is no part of the original text of Jn., but is a later gloss. The best attested text of the gloss is thus given by Hort: ἄγγελος δὲ (v. γὰρ) κυρίου (κατὰ καιρὸν) κατέβαινεν (v. ἐλούετο) ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ καὶ ἐταράσσετο (v. ἐτάρασσε) τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς [μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος] ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο οἵῳ (v. ᾧ) δήποτʼ οὖν (v. δήποτε) κατείχετο νοσήματι.

Linguistic evidence also marks the verse as not original. Thus the words ἐκδέχομαι, κίνησις (here only in N.T.), κατὰ καιρόν (cf. Rom. 5:6, Num. 9:13), ἐμβαίνω (of going into the water; cf. 6:17), ταραχή (here only in the N.T.), κατέχομαι, and νόσημα (here only in N.T.) are non-Johannine.

The healing virtues of the intermittent spring were explained by the Jewish doctrine of the ministry of angels, and the explanation first found a place in the margin and, later, in the text. Cf. Rev. 16:5 for “the angel of the waters,” i.e. the angel who was believed to preside over the mysterious powers of water.

5. The constr. τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων appears again in v. 6 πολύν χρόνον ἔχει. Cf. also 8:57, 9:21, 11:17 for an acc. of the length of time, governed by ἔχειν.

καί before ὀκτώ is om. by BΓ Δ Θ, but ins. א A C D L W; αὐτοῦ after ἀσθενείᾳ is om. by AΓ Δ, but ins. א B C*D L Θ W.

The man had been infirm for thirty-eight years; it is not said that he had been waiting all that time by the pool. That his paralysis had lasted thirty-eight years is mentioned to show that it was no temporary ailment from which he was suffering, just as it is told of the woman in Lk. 13:11 that she had been infirm eighteen years, or of the lame man whom Peter cured that “he was more than forty years old” (Acts 4:22). There is no more reason for finding an esoteric significance in the number 38 than in the numbers 18 or 40. Or, again, in Acts 9:33, Æneas, whom Peter cured of paralysis, is described as ἐξ ἐτῶν ὀκτὼ κατακείμενον ἐπὶ κραβάττου. These eight years are not supposed to be significant as regards their number; and there is no more reason for supposing the thirty-eight years of the text to symbolise anything.

Those who seek for hidden meanings in the Johannine numbers point here to the thirty-eight years of wandering mentioned in Deut. 2:14. But if Jn. had wished to indicate that the years of the paralytic’s infirmity were like the years of Israel in the wilderness, it would have been more natural for him to have said forty, not thirty-eight; for it was forty years before the Promised Land was reached. Cf. 2:20, 21:11; and see Introd., p. lxxxvii.

6. Jesus came, unknown by sight to the sick who were assembled at the pool. καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει, “and when He knew that the man had been infirm for a long time,” He addressed him. It is neither stated nor implied that this knowledge of the man’s sad condition was supernatural. It may have been the common talk of the crowd at the Pool. See on 2:24 for the insight of Jesus into the character of men, and cf. 4:18.

Θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι; sc., as we would say, “Would you like to be well?” There is no need to press the force of θέλεις, as if Jesus meant that the man’s own conscious effort of will must co-operate in the work of healing. That may be true in such cases, but θέλεις here only conveys the simple question, “Would you like to be healed?”

We do not know why Jesus chose this man out from the crowd of sufferers at the pool. Perhaps attention was specially directed to his pathetic case by the onlookers. There is no suggestion that the man had any faith, nor did he display gratitude for his healing. He must have known that to point out Jesus as the agent of his cure (v. 15) would bring his benefactor into danger.

Abbott (Diat. x. iii. 268 f.) suggests that we must take the act of Jesus in connexion with His own comment. He did not select the object of His pity by arbitrary caprice, but “the Son can do nothing Himself, except what He sees the Father doing” (see on v. 19 below). He “saw” this particular act of healing performed by the Father in heaven, and therefore appointed to be performed by the Son on earth. But not only is such an explanation too subtle; it really explains nothing, for why should this particular sick man have been selected by the Father any more than by the Son?

The healing is perhaps, but not certainly, regarded by Jn. as supernatural (see 7:21), although he does not call it a “sign.” But it is not represented as having any relation to the faith of the man that was cured. In this it is like the Synoptic story of the healing of a paralytic (Mk. 2, Mt. 9, Lk. 5), where it is the faith of those who brought the man to Jesus rather than the faith of the man himself that is commended. It is unlike the Synoptic story, in that the cure in the Johannine narrative does not seem to have impressed the onlookers at all. There is nothing here corresponding to “they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion” (Mk. 2:12). In Jn.’s story, everything turns on the fact that it was on the Sabbath that the man was cured, and it was this, and not the wonder of the healing, that attracted attention. See Introd., p. clxxviii.

7. κύριε, ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω κτλ. The sick man explains that it is not his will that is deficient, but that he is unable, because of his infirmity, to get quickly enough down to the water when it becomes “troubled,” because he has no one to assist him. (The paralytic of Mk. 2:3 was helped by four friends to get access to Jesus.)

ὅταν ταραχθῇ τὸ ὕδωρ κτλ. Apparently the popular belief was that, when the water began to bubble at a particular spot, the person who first bathed at that point received relief, but that the spring did not benefit more than one. He who came second had to wait for cure until another overflow.

ἴνα … βάλῃ με εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν. βάλλειν, “to cast,” implies rapidity of movement, which would be impossible for an invalid without assistance.

ἐν ᾧ δὲ ἔρχομαι ἐγώ κτλ. “But while I (ἐγώ being emphatic) am coming, another steps down before me.”

8. ἔγειρε ἆρον κτλ. Jesus ignores the belief of the sick man about the healing waters of the pool, to which He makes no reference. Nor does He, as in the case of the Synoptic paralytic, give him a word of spiritual consolation (Mk. 2:5) before He heals him. Nothing is said to the man, except the sharp command, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει, “Get up, take your pallet and walk.” The words are almost, identical with those of Mk. 2:11, but there the evangelistic comment is that they were effectively spoken in order to show the wondering bystanders that He who spoke them had really the spiritual authority to forgive sins. Here is nothing similar. As has been said (v. 6), there is no clear proof that Jn. regarded the healing of the man at Bethesda as miraculous, nor need we do so. The patient obeyed a sudden, authoritative order to stand up and walk, and when he tried he found that he could do it. That may be the whole of the matter. However, no disciple is expressly said to have been present on the occasion; and the story, which may have come to the evangelist at second or third hand, is told in barest outline.

ἔγειρε (א A B C D W Θ) is to be preferred to the rec. ἔγειραι.

κράβαττος (grabatus), a pallet or mattress, such as was used by the poor, is said to be a late word of Macedonian origin, and is not approved by Phrynichus. It occurs in the N.T. again only in Mk. 2:2–12, 6:55, Acts 5:15, 9:33, and always stands for the bed of a sick person.

περιπάτει So in Lk. 5:23; but at Mk. 2:11, Mt. 9:6, we have ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἷκόν σου.

9. καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο ὑγιὴς ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἦρεν τὸν κράβαττον αὐτοῦ καὶ περιεπάτει. In the parallel, Mk. 2:12, we have ἠγέρθη καὶ εὐθὺς ἄρας τὸν κράβαττον ἐξῆλθεν ἔμπροσθεν πάντων. In both cases εὐθέως or εὐθύς carries the sense of immediate consecutiveness (Lk. 5:25 has παραχρῆμα). The word is not common in Jn. (6:21, 13:30, 32, 18:27, 19:34), and he always uses it thus, whereas it is often used in Mk. only as a conjunctive (see on 1:22).

That the cure was not merely for the moment is shown by the man’s walking away, as is also indicated in the Synoptic story.

The language of Jn. 5:8, 9 closely resembles that of Mk. 2:11, 12, although the stories are quite distinct. Jn. may have availed himself of the words of the earlier evangelist to describe a somewhat similar scene at which he was not present, and of which he could not give the exact report of an eye-witness. See Introd., p. xcvii.

ἦν δὲ σάββατον ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. This is the point of the story for Jn., as also at 9:14 where Jesus healed the blind man. The healing on the Sabbath was the beginning of His controversies at Jerusalem; this was the first occasion on which He had openly violated the law at the metropolis; but cf. Mk. 2:23–3:6 for His earlier claim in Galilee to be Lord of the Sabbath, which had already attracted the attention of the Pharisees.

The Jews Object to Sabbath Healings, and Jesus Replies by the Analogy of God’s Working (vv. 10–19)

10. For οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, see on 1:19. This is the designation throughout the Gospel of the leading opponents of Jesus, i.e. the strict Pharisees, as distinct from the simple folk whether in town or country (ὄχλος). Cf. vv. 13, 15, 16.

τῷ τεθεραπευμένῳ. θεραπεύειν is found only here in Jn., while it is common in the Synoptists. Cf. v. 13 below.

σάββατόν ἐστιν, καὶ οὐκ ἔξεστίν σοι ἆραι τὸν κράβαττον. The bearing of burdens on the Sabbath was forbidden (Neh. 13:19, Jer. 17:21). The Rabbinical law was, “If any one carries anything from a public place to a private house on the Sabbath … intentionally, he is punished by cutting off (i.e. death) and stoning” (Shabb. 6a, quoted by Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr.).

After κράβαττον, א C*D L N W Θ add σου (as at vv. 8, 9), but om. A B C³Γ Δ.

ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ, ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν κτλ. For this emphatic use of ἐκεῖνος. in Jn., see on 1:8. The man’s excuse was reasonable. He who had cured him, by giving him power to get up and walk, had bidden him carry away his bed; surely it was pardonable to obey His command? The excuse was accepted, and the man was not blamed by the Jews: they go on to ask who it was that dared to give such an order.

12. After ἠρώτσαν, the rec., with A C L WΓ Δ Θ, ins. οὖν; om. א B D.

τίς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ εἰπών σοι, “Who is the fellow that said this to you?” ἄνθρωπος is used contemptuously. The Jews do not take any notice of the fact that the man said he had been healed; they complain only of the breach of the Sabbath law involved, not in the healing but in the order to carry the bed. As Grotius says: “Quaerunt non quod mirentur, sed quod calumnietur.” But from 7:23 it is apparent that the real gravamen of the charge made in this case by the Jews was that a work of healing had been done on the Sabbath, although they prefer here to put forward the technical point about carrying the bed home.

13. The man that had been healed did not know who his benefactor was. Jesus was not yet a familiar figure to all and sundry at Jerusalem. He had gone up to the Passover, privately, unaccompanied by His band of disciples (see on v. 2) which would have marked Him out as a Rabbi. This must also have made it easier for Him to slip away unnoticed in the crowd.

ἐξένευσεν ὄχλου ὄντος ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, “He (had) turned aside (cf. 4:44 for this use of the aor.), a crowd being in the place.” ἐκνεύειν (א D* have the simple ἔνευσεν) does not appear again in the N.T., but it is found in the LXX (Judg. 18:26, 2 Kings 2:24, 23:16, 3 Macc. 3:22), being a variant for ἐκκλίνειν at Judg. 4:18. ἐξένευσεν here expresses that Jesus had quietly moved away; cf. 8:59, 10:39, 12:36.

14. μετὰ ταῦτα, i.e. subsequently, not immediately afterwards. See Introd., p. cviii.

εὑρίσκει αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ. Apparently, Jesus sought out the man, as He sought for the blind man whom He cured on a later occasion (9:35; cf. 1:43). It has been conjectured that the man had gone to the Temple to offer thanks for his recovery, but there is no evidence for this. The ἱερόν, or sacred precinct, was a common place of resort; and Jesus, finding him there, gave him a word of grave counsel.

ἴδε (a favourite word with Jn.; see on 1:29) ὑγιὴς γέγονας· μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε κτλ. For μηκέτι ἀμάρτανε, see [8:11]. We cannot tell what the man’s sin had been, but quite possibly it had been the immediate occasion of his loss of health; if so, it had been terribly punished by an infirmity continuing for thirty-eight years. There was a prevalent belief that sickness was always due to sin (cf. Ps. 38:5, 107:17, 1 Cor. 11:30), and a Talmudic saying asserts that “the sick ariseth not from his sickness until his sins be forgiven.” But the moral of the Book of Job is that sickness is not always to be regarded as punishment for sin, and this seems to have been suggested by Jesus, when the case of the man born blind was put to Him (see on 9:3). In the absence of knowledge as to the antecedents of the impotent man of the text, “Sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee” is not susceptible of complete explanation.

Cyprian (Test. iii. 27) quotes “jam noli peccare, ne quid tibi deterius fiat,” to illustrate the danger of sin after baptism, by which a man has been “made whole”—a characteristic comment.

J. H. Moulton¹ has called attention to the curious fact that the Greek words here fall naturally into anapæsts:

—a tolerable, if not perfect, couplet. This is, of course, a mere accident. Cf. 4:35.

15. καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κτλ. εἶπεν is read by א C L, but ἀνήγγειλεν by A BΓ N Θ and ἀπήγγειλεν (which means the same thing, “reported”; see on 16:25) by D.

The man went off and reported to the Jews who it was that had healed him, as soon as he had identified Him. But there is no reason to suppose that this was due to ingratitude, or that he meant to betray his benefactor. He had good reason to fear that severe punishment would follow his technical breach of the Sabbath, despite his excuses (v. 11), and he may have desired to propitiate the ecclesiastical authorities, without meaning that any harm should come to Jesus. They were entitled to know all that he could tell them about a breach of the Sabbath. His action may have been like that of the Jews who reported the raising of Lazarus to the Pharisees, without any malevolent intention (11:46). Yet, in any event, his conduct stands in contrast with that of the blind man who was healed later on (9:33–38).

16. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐδίωκον κτλ., “And for this cause the Jews began to persecute Jesus, because, etc.” The force of the imperfects, ἐδίωκον, ἐποίει, ἐζήτουν (v. 18), must not be overlooked. This was the first open declaration of hostility to Jesus by the Pharisees of Jerusalem, and its immediate cause was His first open violation of the Sabbatical law. ἐδίωκον, “they began to persecute Him”; ὅτι ταῦτα ἐποίει ἐν σαββάτῳ, “because He began to do these things on the Sabbath.” Cf. Mk. 3:6, where a similar cause is assigned for the first exhibition of enmity to Him in Galilee.

διὰ τοῦτο, “for this cause,” referring to what follows (not, as more commonly, to what precedes, e.g. 6:65), is a favourite opening phrase with Jn. Cf. v. 18, 8:47, 10:17, 12:18, 39, 1 Jn. 3:1, and Isa. 24:6 διὰ τοῦτο ἀρὰ ἔδεται τὴν γῆν, ὅτι ἡμάρτοσαν οἱ κατοικοῦντες αὐτὸν.

After τὸν Ἰησοῦν the rec. with AΓ Δ Θ inserts καὶ ἐξζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι (from v. 18), but om. here א B C D L W

17. ἀπεκρίνατο (1 aor. mid.) is found in Jn. only here and at v. 19; ἀπεκρίθη occurring more than 50 times. Abbott¹ points out that while ἀπεκρίθη is the colourless “answered,” ἀπεκρίνατο carries the sense of “made public and formal answer” to a charge or accusation that has been made: “He made His defence,” in reply to the prosecution or persecution of the Jews (ἐδίωκον, v. 16). Cf. οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο (Mk. 14:61, Mt. 27:12, Lk. 23:9). See also 12:23, 13:38, 18:34.

The defence of His technical breach of the Sabbath which Jn. here ascribes to Jesus is different from most of the sayings on the subject of which the Synoptists tell. Thus in Mk. 3:4, Lk. 6:9, Jesus confounds His critics by the simple question, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good?” when they objected to His cure of the man with the withered hand. In Mt. 12:11, Lk. 13:15, He puts the case that no one will scruple to pull a sheep out of a pit or to water his cattle on the Sabbath (cf. 7:23, where appeal is made to a similar principle). In Mk. 2:25, Lk. 6:3, Mt. 12:3, He appeals to O.T. precedent to show that necessity may override strict law, and in Mt. 12:8 He appeals to the saying that God prefers mercy to sacrifice (Hos. 6:6). But in Mk. 2:28, Mt. 12:8, Lk. 6:5, He lays down the principle that “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”¹ This principle contains in germ the argument which Jn. puts forward here, in a different form.

ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι. Here is claimed by Jesus the same freedom with regard to the Sabbath that belongs to God Himself. God instituted the Sabbath for man, but the law of its observance does not bind Him who gave the law.

Philo points out that God, the Author of nature, does not observe the Sabbath: “Having ceased from the creation of mortal creatures on the seventh day, He begins with other more divine beings (διατυπώσεων). For God never ceases making (παύεται γὰρ οὐδέποτε ποιῶν ὁ θεός) but as it is the property of fire to burn and of snow to chill, so it is the property of God to make (οὕτως καὶ θεοῦ τὸ ποιεῖν)” (Leg. All. i. 2, 3). And, again, Ποιῶν ὁ θεὸς οὐ παύεται (l.c. i. 7).²

Justin Martyr quotes a saying from the old man to whom he owed his conversion, to the effect that the heavenly bodies do not keep the Sabbath, ὁρᾶτε ὅτι τὰ στοιχεῖα οὐκ ἀργεῖ οὐδὲ σαββατίζει (Tryph. 23); and the same idea is expressed in the Odes of Solomon: “He rested from His works; and created things run in their courses and do their works, and they know not how to stand or be idle” (Ode xvi. 13).

Such thoughts were prevalent in Jewish circles, and it is to the idea that God Himself does not share the Sabbath rest of man, that appeal is made in this saying which Jn. ascribes to Jesus. Thus Origen rightly says that Jesus shows in Jn. 5:17 that God does not rest on earthly Sabbaths from His providential ordering of the world, the true Sabbath of God being the future rest when He shall be all in all.¹ And the Syriac commentator Isho’dad, who wrote in the ninth century, but whose interpretations preserve much older material, in like manner represents Christ as saying here: “Do I allow the circuit of the sun … the flowing of the rivers … the birth and growth of men together and the energies of all living beings about everything? These are things which are accomplished by means of angels, according to His will, and these things are done in the feasts and on the Sabbaths and at every hour.”²

Thus the ancient interpretation of ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται is clear. The words express the idea (obvious when it is expressed) that God does not keep the Sabbath ἕως ἄρτι, that is, hitherto (see 2:10, 16:24, 1 Jn. 2:9). God’s working has not been intermitted since the Creation. He works, goes on working uninterruptedly, until now. The rest of God is for the future, as Origen points out.

κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι, “And I also work,” sc. in the same way. That is, Jesus claims not only that He may call God ὁ πατήρ μου (“my Father,” in a unique sense; see on 2:16), but that His relation to the Sabbath law is not different from that of God Himself. This is the Johannine form of the Synoptic saying, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,” expressed in mystical and uncompromising fashion.

18. This declaration provoked the Jews to indignation. διὰ τοῦτο (see on v. 16) οὖν (om. א D, but ins. A B C L) μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκεῖναι. The phrase “sought to kill Him” is repeated 7:1, 19, 25, 8:37, 40.

οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον. For λύειν in the sense of “break,” “set at naught,” as in Mt. 5:19, cf. 7:23, 10:35, Moulton-Milligan’s Vocab. (p. 384) cites from papyri of the third century b.c. ἐὰν δέ τις τούτων τι λύηι, κατάρατος ἔστω, and also λύειν τὰ πένθη, “to break the period of mourning,” i.e. to go out of mourning.

That Jesus was setting Sabbatical rules at naught was the primary cause of the Jews’ hostility to Him; but it was a much graver offence that He claimed to have Divine prerogatives. This they treated as blasphemy (cf. 8:59, 10:36, Mk. 2:7, Mt. 26:65).

It need not be doubted that the breaches of the Sabbath which Jesus countenanced provoked the first suspicions of His opponents at Jerusalem (as in Galilee, Mk. 3:2), and that the incident of the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath is historical. Jn. is here true to fact, but he is not interested so much in Jewish Sabbatical doctrines as in the Divine Personality of Jesus,¹ and so he dwells at great length on the doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God which is implied in His claim to be Lord of the Sabbath.

πάτερα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν, “He was calling God His own Father,” in a special sense, as indeed the words ὁ πατήρ μου of v. 17 implied. Cf. Rom. 8:32 ὁ ἴδιος υἱός.

ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ. This was the form in which His Jewish enemies defined the meaning of His words (cf. 10:33, 19:7), and there is a sense in which their complaint might be justified. But the actual phrase ἴσος θεῷ is not part of the claim of Jesus for Himself (see on 14:28 ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστι), and Paul’s phrase is ἴσα θεῷ, which refers to the attributes rather than to the person of Christ (see Lightfoot on Phil. 2:6). It is not taught anywhere by Jn. that Christ is ἴσος θεῷ, for that would seem to divide the Godhead (cf. θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, 1:1).

οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱός ποιεῖν ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν. Cf. οὐ δύναμαι ἐγὼ ποιεῖν ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐδέν (v. 30), and see 7:28, 8:28, 14:10. So Moses had said (Num. 16:28), and it is true of every man that “he can do nothing of himself,” but only what God empowers him to do. Here, however, the thought is deeper. It is that the relation between the Father and the Son is so intimate, that even the Son of God can do “nothing of Himself.” His works are the works of the Father (cf. v. 17) who sent Him (see on 3:17). He has ἐξουσία (see on 10:18), but it is always a delegated authority. It is a moral impossibility that He should do anything “of Himself,” ἂν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα, “unless He be seeing the Father doing something.” Thus the Incarnate Son is represented as continually seeing on earth what the Father is doing in heaven, and as Himself doing the same thing.² The action of the Father and the Son is, sc to say, coextensive; cf. 14:10.

ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ κτλ., “for what He, the Father, does (see on 1:8 for ἐκεῖνος in Jn.), the Son does likewise.”

This mystical doctrine that the Son cannot do anything except what He sees the Father doing has verbal affinity with the teaching of Philo. He speaks of the πρεσβύτατος υἱός, or πρωτόγονος, as one “who imitated the ways of the Father and, seeing His archetypal patterns, formed certain species” (μιμούμενος τὰς τοῦ πατρὸς ὁδούς, πρὸς παραδείγματα ἀρχέτυπα ἐκείνου βλέπων ἐμόρφου εἴδη, de confus. ling. 14).

Ignatius (Magn. 7) has the words ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδέν ἐποίησεν, ἡνωμένος ὤν (cf. Jn. 10:30), οὔτε διʼ ἑαυτοῦ οὔτε διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων, which appear to be a reminiscence of Johannine texts such as the present passage and 8:28.

20. vv. 20–29 form a section by themselves. They deal with the secrets of the Divine Life, and unfold in some degree the relation of the Son to the Father, thus providing an explanation of, or commentary on, the mystic words of v. 17, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” and of v. 19, “The Son can do nothing of Himself.” As at other points in the Gospel (see on 3:16), it is impracticable to distinguish precisely the evangelist’s own commentary from the words which he ascribes to Jesus. The formula “Verily, verily, I say unto you,” which precedes vv. 19, 24, 25, always introduces words of Jesus Himself, and this must be the intention here. And vv. 28, 29, seem also to be placed in His mouth. But the use of ὥσπερ γάρ at the beginning of v. 21 and again at v. 26 (ὥσπερ does not appear again in Jn.) suggests that vv. 21–23 and vv. 26, 27, may be comments of the evangelist on the sayings of Jesus introduced by ἀμὴν ἀμήν in vv. 19, 24, 25. This is like Jn.’s use of γάρ elsewhere (see on 3:16).¹ It will be observed that the third person is employed throughout in vv. 21–23, 26, 27. We do not return to the first person until v. 30, where the opening words are the words of v. 19.

It is possible that the sayings of vv. 24, 25 and 28, 29 belong to some discourse different from that which was addressed to the Jewish cavillers about work on the Sabbath day; but the argument of this section (vv. 20–29) is quite consecutive (see on v. 28).

ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱόν. D reads ἀγαπᾷ from 3:35 (where see note). “The Father loves the Son, and so exhibits to Him the things which He Himself does.” φιλεῖν expresses more than the intimacy of friendship; it is here equivalent to ἀγαπᾶν (see on 3:35 and 21:17), and expresses the mystery of the Divine Love, of the Father for the Son. This is so complete and unreserved that all the Father’s works are displayed, as they are being wrought, to the Son. No reference is made to any limitation of the Incarnate Son’s knowledge of the future, such as is indicated in Mk. 13:32; the statement is that the Son has complete cognizance of all that the Father does in the present.

καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, “and greater works than these (sc. healing miracles such as the cure of the impotent man, which had disquieted the Jews so much) shall He show Him.” In the following verses, these “greater works” are specified, viz. that of raising the dead, and that of judging mankind.

The miracles of Christ are described in Mt. 11:2 as His ἔργα, and Jn. applies this description to them frequently (5:36, 7:3, 21, 10:25, 32, 38, 14:12, 15:24), as he does to the “works”of God (4:34, 6:28, 9:3, 17:4; cf. Ps. 95:9). For God there is no distinction in kind between “natural” and “supernatural” works. And the works of Christ are actually the works of God: ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ (14:10). See on 7:21.

ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε. ὑμεῖς is emphatic, “you, incredulous Jews.” The healing miracles did not so much arouse their wonder, as their jealous indignation (there is no hint that the cure of the impotent man caused any wonder); but the “greater works” of raising the dead, and of judgment, could not fail to make them marvel. Such astonishment may pass into admiration, and thence into faith (cf. Acts 4:13).

Later on, it is promised to the faithful disciple that, in the power of Christ’s Risen Life, he too should do “greater things” than those which had attended the Lord’s public ministry: μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει. But this is not in contemplation here. See note on 14:12.

21. The first of the “greater works” specified is that of the “quickening” power of Christ, in raising the dead. The power of death and life is a Divine prerogative (Wisd. 16:13), “Yahweh kills and makes alive” (Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam. 2:6 θανατοῖ καὶ ζωογονεῖ, 2 Kings 5:7 θανατῶσαι καὶ ζωοποιῆσαι). Several times in the daily prayer of the Jews, the Shemoneh Esreh, which in substance goes back to a period before the first century,¹ is God invoked as One who “quickens the dead.” Cf. θεοῦ τοῦ ζωοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκρούς (Rom. 4:17), and also Rom. 8:11 ὁ ἐγείρας ἐκ νεκρῶν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ζωοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν. So here we have ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζωοποιεῖ, ἐγείρειν being used of God’s “raising” of the dead, as it is at Mk. 12:26.

This Divine prerogative also appertains to the Son: οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζωοποιεῖ. Paul has the same doctrine of Christ, as πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν (1 Cor. 15:45; cf. 1 Cor. 15:22), revivifying the dead. ζωοποιεῖν is not used here in a spiritual sense only (as at 6:63; cf. Eph. 2:5), although that is included in its meaning; the significance of the verse as specifying one of Christ’s “greater works” is that He is declared to be one who has power over the death of the body, so that it is His to “quicken” whom He will. He is the Resurrection as well as the Life (11:25).

οὓς θέλει. His will is final as to who are to be “quickened,” just as there is no appeal from God’s will (Rom. 9:18).

22, 23. The second of the “greater works” of Christ is that of judgment, a prerogative which has been already implied in οὓς θέλει of the preceding verse, for all judgment or separation between the evil and the good is a selective process.

Judgment is the prerogative of God (cf. Deut. 1:17), for to be perfectly administered it demands omniscience. But this tremendous office has been “given” (see on 3:35) by the Father to the Son. ὁ πατὴρ κρίνει οὐδένα, ἀλλὰ τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν δέδωκεν τῷ υἱῷ. The doctrine of the Son of Man as the final Judge of mankind has been already examined (see Introd., pp. cxxvii, clvi; cf. 3:17). Here is added the Divine reason for this delegation of judgment to the Son by the Father. It is ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱόν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα.

The Jews were dishonouring Jesus (cf. 8:49) in accusing Him of blasphemy (v. 18), but worship is His due, for the honour due to the Father is His. With the thought that they who dishonour Him dishonour the Father, cf. 15:23, 1 Jn. 2:23, and Lk. 10:16.

τιμᾶν is found in Jn. again at 8:49, 12:26, and is generally used by him of the honour due to Christ or to His Father.

24. In vv. 24, 25, the thought is of spiritual life and death, the believer in Christ possessing already eternal life, and the words of eternal life being proclaimed in the ears of the spiritually dead, that they too may hear and live. In vv. 28, 29, the reference is to the future life, the voice of Christ being a voice of power at the Last Judgment, even as it is now. See on v. 28.

ἀμὴν ἀμήν …: see on 1:51. Here this formula introduces two distinct assertions, both surprising in their majestic claims of power, in vv. 24 and 25 respectively.

ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων … “he that hears my word” (cf. 8:43; and for ἀκούειν followed by an accusative, see on 3:8), καὶ πιστεύων τῷ πέμψαντί με, “and believes Him that sent me.” To hear with the outward ear is not enough; the inward response is essential. There must be the belief in Christ (3:15, where see note), which is the same thing as belief in the word of Him who sent Him (12:44). For the “sending” of the Son by the Father, see on 3:17.

ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον. The obedient believer has eternal life, as a present possession. See on 3:15, and cf. 1 Jn. 5:12.

καὶ εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται. Cf. 3:18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται. The believer “comes not to judgment”; that has already been determined.¹ None the less, the prayer of humility will always be μὴ εἰσέλθῃς εἰς κρίσιν μετὰ τοῦ δούλου σου (Ps. 143:2).

ἀλλὰ μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν. Some Latin versions try to escape the force of the pft. tense by the renderings transit, transiet, and Nonnus in his paraphrase has ἴξεται ἐκ θανατοίο; but this is through misunderstanding. Jn. is quite clear that the believer has “passed from death into life,” into the eternal life which begins here. Cf. οἴδαμεν ὅτι μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν (1 Jn. 3:14), the reason for such assurance being added, ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς.

25. οἱ νεκροὶ ἀκούσουσιν κτλ. Even those who do not believe, who are spiritually dead, are not beyond the range of Christ’s words. They, too, may hear and live. This is one of those extraordinary assurances which must be introduced by the solemn adjuration ἀμὴν ἀμήν. It is, as it were, a corollary or sequel to v. 24; see on 1:51.

Of the quickening of the physically dead at the Last Judgment, it is said in v. 28 ἔρχεται ὥρα, but of the spiritually dead in the present, ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν, as at 4:23, where see note. To treat καὶ νῦν ἐστίν as an editorial interpolation here is to misunderstand the sequence of thought in vv. 24–29.

οἱ νεκροί here are the spiritually dead, as at Eph. 2:1, 5, 5:14. “They shall hear (cf. ἀκούων in v. 24) the voice of the Son of God.” It is not only.His sheep who may hear His voice (10:16), but those also who have not yet learnt to follow. Note that ἀκούειν with the gen. carries the meaning of “hearing with appreciation”; see on 3:8.

τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ: see on 1:34. It is only in Jn. that this title is put into the mouth of Jesus (10:36, 11:4); while he often employs it when writing in his own person.

B has ἀκούσουσιν, but א L W read ἀκούσωσιν, the rec. having ἀκούσονται. Also the rec. ζήσονται (AΓ Δ Θ) must give place to ζήσουσιν (א B D L W).

26. ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατήρ κτλ. Verses 26, 27, repeat (from vv. 21, 22) that the Father has given to the Son (a) the quickening power and (b) the authority of judge, which are prerogatives of Deity.

Verse 26 deals with the power of life. To Hebrew thought, no less than to Greek, God is the Living One: “With thee is the fountain of life” (Ps. 36:9). Thus the Father “has life in Himself,” and so He gave “to the Son to have life in Himself,” ἐν ἑαυτῷ being emphatic. (For ὤσπερ, see on v. 20 above.) To “have life in Himself” involves the power to give out life, or to quicken.

This “giving” has been interpreted of the mystical communication of life sub specie œternitatis by the Father to the Son in His pre-incarnate state; and the statement would then point to the Logos doctrine of the Prologue (cf. esp. 1:3, “In Him was Life,” and the note in loc.). This is possible (see on 17:24); but the thought of the Father “giving” to the Incarnate Son is frequent in Jn. (see on 3:35 above). It is better to interpret ἔδωκεν as in the other passages in the Gospel, where it is applied to the Father’s gifts to Christ as manifested in the flesh (see on 17:2). Christ is, in any case, “the Living One” (Rev. 1:18); but the significance of ἔδωκεν here is the same as that suggested by the words, “I live because of the Father” (6:57). The Divine power of life is delegated to Him, as is the Divine prerogative of judgment, which Jn. sets forth in v. 27.

27. The rec., supported by DΓ Δ Θ and some O.L. texts, has καί before κρίσιν; but om. א^cA B L W.

ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ: see v. 22. The ἐξουσία is that of 17:2; cf. also Mt. 28:18. The Father “gave to Him authority to pass judgment, because He is the Son of Man,”¹ to whom, as we have seen,² the tremendous office of Judge is assigned in Jewish apocalyptic.

It has been suggested that the absence of the article before υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου here is significant, and that we should render “because He is a son of man,” the meaning being that the office of the Judge of men is committed to Christ because He is Man, an affinity of nature between Judge and him who is judged being essential for just judgment. But the title “Son of Man” occurs repeatedly in Jn. (see on 1:51), and several times in connexion with the thought of Him as Judge. It would be strange if in the present passage, where His office as Judge is emphasised, another explanation of the phrase should be necessary.

The absence of the article before υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου is not to be pressed. Official titles have a tendency to become anarthrous, and this has happened here, although elsewhere in Jn. we have ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. If we are right in regarding vv. 20–29 as, in part, a commentary by the evangelist on what Jesus actually said to the Jews, then it is the less surprising to find υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου instead of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, which never occurs in narrative. The latter is a designation of Himself used by Jesus in all four Gospels, but is not employed by the evangelists when referring to Him.

28. μὴ θαυμάζετε τοῦτο (cf. v. 20). This is not to be connected with the statement “because He is the Son of Man,” as Chrysostom suggested, and as is implied in the Pesh. Syriac and in Δ. It has been stated that the Father has given to the Son the power of life and authority to pass judgment (vv. 26, 27), in reference more particularly to the spiritual life of men in this present world (vv. 24, 25). But what is still more wonderful (here is indicated the mind of the first century), these powers of quickening and of judgment extend to the physical awakening of the dead and their judgment in the body at the Last Assize. The argument is: The Son is to do greater works than works of healing, in order that the observers may marvel (as apparently they had not done when the impotent man was cured, v. 20); these greater works include the power of awakening the spiritually dead, and of being the Agent of judgment in this life, as to belief and unbelief (vv. 24, 25). This, indeed, is marvellous, but the greater marvel is what will happen at the Last Day, when the dead in the tombs shall be quickened by the voice of the Son of God, and final judgment shall be pronounced by Him on good and evil.

Such a doctrine, no doubt, has its roots in Jewish eschatology, but the Fourth Gospel cannot be understood unless it be realised that Jn. has not abandoned this, while he lays his emphasis on the spiritual conceptions of eternal life and judgment in the present, which were taught by Jesus (see Introd., p. clxi). Verses 28, 29, have been thought to be “materialistic,” but they cannot be torn from the text as an interpolation or later addition;¹ they are an integral part of the argument.

With ἀκούσουσιν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ, cf. 11:43 φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκραύγασεν, Λάζαρε, δεῦρο ἔξω.

πάντες οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις κτλ. This is a plain statement of a general bodily resurrection, both of good and bad, such as is suggested in Apoc. of Baruch 50, 51, 2 Esd. 7:32f. In the N.T. it is explicitly asserted in Mt. 25:46, Acts 24:15, 2 Cor. 5:10; and it is frequently implied in the Synoptic reports of the words of Jesus (e.g. Mt. 5:29, 30, 10:28. Lk. 11:32). That Christ is the Agent of this Resurrection, so far as the righteous are concerned at any rate, has appeared 6:39f. He “makes alive” both in this world and at the Day of Judgment; such is the consistent teaching of Jn.

29. The word ἀνάστασις is used by Æschylus (Eum. 648) of “rising up” from the grave, that is, of “resurrection.” In the LXX it is infrequent, and occurs with this meaning at 2 Macc. 7:14, 12:43 only (cf. Ps. 66^tit). The Synoptists have it in the narrative of the questioning Sadducees (Mk. 12:18f., Mt. 22:23f., Lk. 20:27f.); and, besides, Lk. has the phrase “the resurrection of the just” (14:14). We have ἀνάστασις in Jn. again at 11:24, 25.

There are the two resurrections: one of life, the other of judgment. For the former, cf. 2 Macc. 7:14 σοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀνάστασις εἰς ζωὴν οὐκ ἔσται. The two are mentioned together Dan. 12:2.

For τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες (πράσσοντες D), see on 3:20.

Life and judgment begin in this world, but the life once secured continues eternally, the future judgment being already anticipated. The evil-doer is to rise after death, for a judgment which, although predetermined, has not yet been fully exhibited or revealed. See on 3:18f.

Jesus Appeals to the Witness to His Claims Provided by God (vv. 32, 37), By the Baptist (v. 33), By His Own Works (v. 36), And by the O.T. (v. 39)

30. The discourse returns to the first person, from the third; the thought, “I can do nothing of myself,” returning to v. 19, where see note (cf. 8:28 ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν).

ἐμαυτός is used by Jesus of Himself 16 times in Jn., never in the Synoptists, where it occurs only Mt. 8:9, Lk. 7:7, 8.

καθὼς ἀκούω κρίνω, i.e. “as I hear from the Father (see on v. 19), I judge.” The authority to judge is delegated to Him (v. 27); and His judgments are righteous because they reflect the judgments of God Himself. ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ δικαία ἐστίν (cf. Ps. 7:11 of God, the Righteous judge) is repeated 8:16 in the form ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ ἀληθινή ἐστιν. There is no self-will in the passing of these judgments, οὑ ζητῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμόν, but rather τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με. For this last phrase, see 6:38, 39, 40, where it recurs, and 4:34. Cf. especially the notes on 7:16, 17, 18.

Thus to seek that God’s will be done, in every decision of life, was perfectly realised only in the Son of Man Himself. But the precept of Rabbi Gamaliel may apply to every man, however imperfectly it may be obeyed: “Do His will as if it were thy will, that He may do thy will as if it were His will.”¹

The rec. adds πατρός after τοῦ πέμψαντός με (cf. 6:40), but om. א A B D L N W

31. The argument in vv. 31–37 is that the proclamation by Jesus of His own claims and authority did not depend, as the Pharisees naturally urged, upon His individual testimony. He admits that if the witness which He bore to Himself was merely that of one man, it would not be sufficient. “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true,” i.e. it need not be taken as true, for (of course) a single witness may speak truth even in his own case. But He urges that, apart from the “witness” to Him which was given by John the Baptist to the Pharisees when they made inquiry (v. 33), upon which He does not rely (v. 34), there is the “witness” of Another, greater immeasurably than John (vv. 32, 34). The “witness” of the “works” which He did is really the “witness” of God (v. 36), without whom they could not have been done, and in whose Name and by whose authority they were done. The argument in 8:14–17 is different. He does, indeed, appeal there, as He does here, to the fact that the “witness” of the Father corroborates His own, and that therefore the requisite “two witnesses” are present in His case (8:17); but He goes on to claim that His consciousness of Divine origin (v. 14) and the intimacy of His union with the Father justify Him in the assertion, paradoxical as it might seem to His opponents, that His self-witness must be true. ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ is the claim and the style of Deity (8:18).

Here, however, He is represented only as saying that His individual witness is confirmed by the witness of God.

ἐὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἡ μαρτυρία μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής. This challenges comparison with 8:14, where the sentence is verbally repeated, with the omission of οὐκ: “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is true.”

The Jewish maxims as to evidence were rigidly and pedantically observed in the subtle disputations of the Rabbinical schools. One was that two witnesses at least were always necessary for the establishment of any matter of fact (Deut. 19:15). To this maxim allusion is made 2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5:19; and Jesus quotes it as a rule at Mt. 18:16. Another, not less weighty, rule was that a man’s evidence about himself was suspect. Wetstein quotes the Mishna (Ketuboth ii. 9), “homo non est fide dignus de se ipso.” That, indeed, is a common maxim of law everywhere; cf. Demosthenes, 2 contra Steph. § 9 μαρτυρεῖν γὰρ οἱ νόμοι οὐκ ἐῶσιν αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ. Now when Jesus enunciated lofty claims for Himself and for His mission, He was challenged to substantiate them, and all arguments conducted with the Rabbis had perforce to fall in with their doctrine as to what constituted valid evidence. The arguments here (vv. 31–39) and at 8:12–19 seem to a modem reader pedantic and unattractive in form, precisely because they reproduce modes of thought and speech which are foreign to our Western culture. They are not like the arguments of Greek disputants; but their Rabbinical flavour is an indication that they have been faithfully reported by one who was himself a Jew, and to whom Jewish scholasticism was not strange or unfamiliar. In arguing with the Rabbis, Jesus did not shrink from arguing on their principles, and had He refused to do this, He could not have gained a hearing at Jerusalem at all. See Introd., p. lxxxii.

32. ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμοῦ (cf. 8:18). To interpret ἄλλος of John the Baptist, as is done, e.g., by Chrysostom, makes havoc of the argument which follows. Cyprian (Epist. lxvi. 2) rightly interprets ἄλλος of the Father. Blass¹ cites, in illustration of such a use of ἄλλος Æschylus, Suppl. 230, κἀκεῖ δικάζει … Ζεὺς ἄλλος; and Abbott (Diat. 2791) quotes a passage from Epictetus (iii. 13, 13–14), where God is reverentially described as Another (ἄλλος), who guards men’s lives. Cf. 14:16.

The present participle μαρτυρῶν should be noted: “There is Another who is bearing witness concerning me,” this witness being continuous and a present reality at the time of speaking, whereas the witness of John the Baptist is spoken of in the past tense (vv. 34, 35). According to the arrangement of the Gospel text which is followed in this commentary (see on 6:1), John the Baptist was dead at the point in the ministry of Jesus which has now been reached (cf. v. 35).

For οἶδα (א^cA B L N W Θ), א*D and Syr. sin. have οἴδατε, a reading due to the mistaken interpretation which treats ἄλλος as referring to John the Baptist.

καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία κτλ., “and I know that the witness which He witnesseth of me is true.” No one could know this as the Speaker knew it; cf. ἐγὼ οἶδα αὐτὸν ὅτι παρʼ αὐτοῦ εἰμι (7:29).

The reference to God the Father as His witness is an illustration of the saying ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστι 14:28), and helps to explain it. Philo lays down the principle that “he who bears witness, in so far as he does so, is superior to him of whom witness is borne,” ὁ μαρτυρῦν, παρʼ ὅσο. μαρτυρεὶ, κρείττων ἐστὶν τοῦ ἐκμαρτυρουμένου (de sacr. Abelis et Caini, § 28).

33. ὑμεῖς ἀπεστάλκατε πρὸς Ἰωάνην, “Ye sent to John” (cf. 1:19), and his witness was trustworthy, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκεν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, as was the purpose of his mission (1:7), a purpose which was also that of the mission of Jesus Himself (18:37).

34. But, try as was the witness of the Baptist, it is not that upon which Jesus relies. ἐγώ is in contrast with ὑμεῖς of the preceding. ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω, “but the witness which I accept is not from man.” For τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνειν, of accepting testimony as adequate, cf. 3:11, 32. See 1 Jn. 5:9 εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν.

ἀλλὰ, “nevertheless”; although He did not rely upon the witness of John, He referred to it because it was of it that the Pharisees had made inquiry (1:19), and He would remind them of this. ταῦτα λέγω, “I say these things,” i.e. about the Baptist’s testimony, ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε, “in order that you (who made inquiry) may be saved.” It was the final cause of the mission of Jesus, ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος (see on 3:17 for σώζειν).

35. ἐκεῖνος (much used by Jn. to mark out the subject of a sentence; see on 1:8) ἦν (the use of the past tense shows that the ministry of John Baptist was over; see on v. 32) ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων, “the Lamp that burns and shines.” The Baptist, as Jn. has said (1:8), was not the Light (τὸ φῶς), but he was a lamp whose shining illuminated the darkness. “Non Lux iste, sed lucerna,” as the Latin hymn has it. Cf. οἱ λύχνοι καιόμενοι (Lk. 12:35), and especially 2 Pet. 1:19, where prophecy is compared to λύχνος φαίνων ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ. When the Light comes, the lamp is no longer needed.

A lamp not only burns as it gives light, but it burns away, and so it was with the Baptist, who decreased as His Master increased; but this is not necessarily implied here.

David is called the λύχνος of Israel (2 Sam. 21:17); but the sentence ἡτοίμασα λύχνον τῷ χριστῷ μου (Ps. 132:17) came to be applied by the Fathers to John the Baptist, the metaphor of John as the Lamp being widely adopted. It is said in Ecclus. 48:1 that the word of Elijah was like a burning torch, ὡς λάμπας ἐκαίετο; and, if there were any evidence that Elijah was compared traditionally to a Lamp, we might suppose that the description in the text of John, the new Elijah, as λύχνος carried an allusion to this. But Ecclus. 48:1 does not provide sufficent foundation for such a theory.

ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠθελήσατε ἀγαλλιαθῆναι (so א A B D Γ Δ Θ N; but L W have ἀγαλλιασθῆναι) πρὸς ὥραν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτοῦ, “You were pleased to rejoice for a time in his light,” words which remind the Jews of how popular John Baptist had been (Mk. 1:5, Mt. 3:5, 11:7, 21:26; and cf. Jn. 1:19), and of the fickleness of those who had been attracted to him, like moths to a lighted candle.

36. But Jesus does not rest His claims on the witness of the Baptist (cf. v. 34). ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω (this is the true reading, μείζων of A B W being due to misunderstanding) τοῦ Ἰωάνου, “but I (ἐγώ being emphatic) have witness greater than that of John”; cf. vv. 32, 37, 1 Jn. 5:9. The works which He did were witness that His mission was from God.

For this conception of the ἔργα of Jesus as His “witness,” see 10:25; and cf. Mt. 11:4, Lk. 7:22, where He bade John’s disciples report His works of healing to their master as sufficient proof of His Messiahship. Faith which is generated by the witness of such “works” is not faith in its highest form (cf. 10:38, 14:11; and see 2:23), but to reject their witness is sinful (15:24). Cf. also 3:2.

For the ἔργα of the Son, see on v. 20 above. They are described here as “the works which the Father has given me (see on 3:35) to accomplish.” And at 17:4 Jesus is represented as claiming that He had accomplished them, the words used being almost the same as in this verse, τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω.

αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιῶ μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ. The repetition of αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα is conversational. Cf., for similar words, 10:25, 14:11. The thing which is established by these ἔργα is that Jesus had been “sent” by the Father, ὅτι ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν. This is His claim throughout. See on 3:17 for this conception both in Jn. and in the Synoptists; and cf. 11:42.

37. ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ. We cannot distinguish between πέμπω here and ἀποστέλλω in the preceding verse; see on 3:17.

μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ ἐμοῦ. Cf. 8:18; and see v. 32. We have already had the indirect witness of the Father to the Son, through the ἔργα which the Son did (v. 36), but the Father’s witness is also direct, and this is indicated, although the argument is abbreviated to the point of obscurity, in vv. 37, 38. The reasoning is as follows:

“The Father, who sent me, has borne witness of me. True, He is not a visible witness: you cannot see God’s form or hear His voice with the outward ear. But to those who accept Jesus, the message from God that He is His Son abides continually in the believer’s heart. The consciousness of a Divine revelation is the Father’s own witness, although invisible to the world.”

The key to vv. 37, 38, is found in 1 Jn. 5:9, 10 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. The believer has an internal witness, which is in reality the witness of God. We are not to think of voices from heaven or visible epiphanies as indicated by the μαρτυρία of the Father; such are recorded by the Synoptists at the Baptism and the Transfiguration (cf. also Jn. 12:28). It is the confident assurance of the believer which is here in question.

οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ πώποτε ἀκηκόατε, “you have never heard His voice,” much less heard it with intelligence. See on 3:8 for ἀκούειν with the acc. in Jn., who uses this constr. as equivalent to a mere perception by hearing, without definite appreciation of what is said. What is stated is that the Jews could not have heard the voice of God with the outward ear.

οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, “nor have you seen His form.” So 1:18 θεον οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε, and 1 Jn. 4:12; cf. 6:46. This was admitted by Jew and Greek alike. Peniel, the place of Jacob’s wrestling, is called indeed in the LXX εἶδος θεοῦ (Gen. 32:30), the reason given being ἴδον γὰρ θεὸν πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον. But no Jew regarded that as an ordinary experience, or one that he might expect to be repeated in his own case. Man cannot see with bodily eyes the εἶδος of God; and so God cannot appear as a witness to give legal evidence.

From οὔτε φωνήν to ἑωράκατε is a kind of parenthesis, interpolated to avoid misunderstanding. Then follows the description of the true μαρτυρία of the Father.

38. καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν μένοντα. καί. (as in v. 40 καὶ οὐ θέλετε) stands for and yet, as often in Jn. (see note on 1:10). The sequence of thought is: The Father has borne witness of me, and yet you have not His word abiding in you, you have not appropriated this Divine word of revelation.

The λόγος of God is used sometimes by Jn. to signify the message or revelation or command which God has given. Thus in 10:35 there is allusion to the λόγος of God which came to men of the olden time with the revelation “Ye are gods … ye are sons of the Most High” (Ps. 82:6). Such a word of God, when it comes to a faithful heart, abides there. To the young men whom Jn. commends, he writes, ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει (1 Jn. 2:14). And, again, of self-deceivers who claim to be sinless, ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν (1 Jn. 1:10). So, in 17:6, Jesus says of His faithful apostles, τὸν λόγον σου τετήρηκαν. Cf. 15:3.

The metaphor is different at 8:31, where Jesus speaks of the faithful disciples as “abiding in His word” (ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ). Here He speaks of the word of the Father abiding in them, which is really the Father’s “witness.” But, in fact, the two expressions “abiding in His word” and “His word abiding in us” imply each other in Jn. Similarly (see on 6:56), to “abide in Christ” implies that He “abides in us” (cf. also 15:4, 7). The two go together.

ὄτι ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος τούτῳ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε, “because He whom He sent—Him you do not believe.” For the constr., viz. a casus pendens reinforced by a pronoun, see on 1:12. The order of pronouns, τούτῳ ὑμεῖς, is emphatic.

The failure to appropriate the Father’s witness, the fact that the λόγος of the Father, which surely came to them revealing Jesus as His Son, did not “abide” in them, is traced to the lack of faith, just as in 1 Jn. 5:10 ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ θεῷ ψεύστην πεποίηκεν αὐτόν, ὄτι οὐ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἥν μεμαρτύρηκεν ὁ θεὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

This λόγος of the Father in men’s hearts is His sure witness, although it cannot be used for the conviction of unbelievers.

39. The rec. text has ἐρευνᾶτε, but א B*N have ἐραυνᾶτε, which is the better form.

αἱ γραφαί, in the plural, stands for the collected books of the O.T. Canon (so Mt. 21:42, Lk. 24:27); but elsewhere in Jn. we find always ἡ γραφή with reference to a particular passage (see on 2:22).

The verb ἐραυνᾶν is found again in Jn. only at 7:52 (where see note), and is not used elsewhere in the N.T. of searching the Scriptures (in Acts 17:11 the word used is ἀνακρίνειν); but we have in Ps. 119:2 μακρίοι οἱ ἐξεραυνῶντες τὰ μαρτύρια αὐτοῦ.

It has been much debated whether ἐραυνᾶτε in this passage is to be taken as an imperative, or as a present indicative. Origen (c. Celsum, v. 16) and Tertullian (de Præscript. 8) take it as imperative, so that the familiar exhortation “Search the Scriptures” goes back at any rate to the end of the second century. This is the rendering of the older English versions, as also of the Latin Vulgate, and (apparently) of Irenæus (Hær. iv. 10. 1). But, despite this early tradition, it is preferable to follow the R.V. in translating “Ye search the Scriptures, for in them, etc.,” for the argument seems to halt if ἐραυνᾶτε is imperative. Jesus is not exhorting the Jews here; He is arguing with them, and rebuking them for their stubborn rejection of Him. Their fault is οὐ θέλετε ἐλθεῖν πρός με.

It was a Rabbinical saying that “he who has acquired the words of the Law has acquired eternal life“;¹ and it is this kind of superstition to which the words “Ye search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life,” refer. ζωὴ αἰώνιος here means “the future life,” as often in Jn. (see on 3:15), and the word δοκεῖτε is significant. In categorical sentences δοκεῖν in Jn. (see 5:45, 11:13, 31, 13:29, 16:2, 20:15) always² indicates a mistaken or inaccurate opinion: ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε means “you think, wrongly.”

It is not possible to treat ἐραυνᾶτε as an imperative, and do justice to these considerations. Why should the Jews be bidden to search the Scriptures because they held a wrong opinion about their sanctity? The reading of them in the formal manner of the Rabbis did not carry with it the possession of eternal life. Their true sanctity lay in their pointing onward to the Christ. ἐκεῖναί (these very Scriptures, which you misuse) εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ, which the Jews did not appreciate.

The argument, then, is, “You search the Scriptures because of your mistaken belief that this close scrutiny of words and syllables in the sacred books assures you of the life to come. There you are wrong. The true value of the Scriptures is that they bear witness of me. And you are doubly wrong, for you will not come to me in person, when the opportunity is given.”³

40. οὐ θέλετε ἐλθεῖν πρός με. This is the tragedy of the rejection of Messiah by the Messianic race; cf. Mt. 23:37, with the same sombre conclusion, οὐκ ἠθελήσατε. The use of καἰ (cf. v. 38), meaning “and yet,” before οὐ θέλετε is a feature of Jn.’s style. See on 1:10.

41. Verses 41–47 are an exposure of the source of the Jews’ unbelief. It is this, that they do not love God, and so they do not appreciate Him who came in God’s Name. They are concerned rather with the approval of their fellows, than with God’s approval. Nevertheless, Jesus says that He will not accuse them to God. Moses will be their accuser: he wrote of Messiah, and the Jews did not appreciate what he wrote. It is not to be expected, if they reject the written teaching of Moses, that they should accept the verbal teaching of Jesus.

δόξαν παρὰ ἀνθρώπων οὐ λαμβάνω. His words of rebuke do not spring from any wounded pride because they did not accept His claims. Their approval is of no weight with Him (8:50; cf. the similar repudiation made by Paul, 1 Thess. 2:6). That the honour (δόξα) which is bestowed by men on their fellows is not to be greatly prized is not a peculiarly Johannine doctrine (5:44, 7:18, 12:43), but appears in Mt. 6:1, 2 and elsewhere. Cf. “The good inclination receiveth not glory or dishonour from men” (Test. of XII. Patriarchs, Benj. vi. 4). For δόξα, see on 1:14.

42. ἀλλὰ ἔγνωκα ὑμᾶς, “but I have known you,” sc. with the knowledge that comes from personal experience; cf. 2:24.

ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, “that you have not the love of God in yourselves.” In Paul “the love of God” always means the love which God has for man, and “the love of Christ” is the love which Christ has for man. But the usage in Jn. is not so uniform.

ἀγάπη is used 13:35, 15:13 of the love of man for man; in 15:9, 10 of the love of Christ for man; and in 15:10, 17:26 of the love of God for Christ. In the First Epistle, in like manner, in 3:1, 4:9, 10, 16 the thought is of the love of God for man; in 3:16 it is the love of Christ for man; but in 2:5, 15, 3:17, 4:12, 5:3 we must interpret ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ or the like phrase as signifying the love which man has for God. See on 21:15.

We see, then, that the meaning of ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ in the present passage must be determined from the context, and we conclude that it must mean the love which men have for God. No doubt, as Abbott argues (Diat. 2040), the phrase in v. 38 τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν μένοντα, suggests that as λόγος there is the λόγος that proceeds from God, so ἀγάπη here should mean the love that flows out from God. But it could hardly be imputed for reproach to the Jews that God did not love them. The point of the reproach is that they did not love God, and so were not in spiritual sympathy with One who came ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός. And, as we have seen, this sense of ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, sc. the love of man for God, although it is not found again in the Fourth Gospel (but see on 21:15 for the uses of the verb ἀγαπάω), may be amply justified by the language of 1 Jn.

43. ἐγὼ ἐλήλυθα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου. Jesus is represented by Jn. as speaking of the “Name” of His Father 7 times (the number 7 probably having no significance; see Introd., p. lxxxix). The “Name” of the Father was given to the Incarnate Son (17:11, 12); “in the Name of His Father” He came (5:43) and performed the “works” which were His witness (10:25). This “Name” He “manifested” (17:6), and “made known” (17:26) to His disciples. He prayed the Father to “glorify” His Name (12:28).

To primitive Hebrew thought the name had an intimate and mysterious connexion with him whose name it was; and this idea lies behind the widely spread practice of reciting the names of foes for magical purposes. The name was the expression of the personality. Thus “the Name of Yahweh” came to signify the revelation of the Being of God, exhibiting itself in Power and Providence,¹ and it is frequently used thus in the O.T. (cf. Ps. 20:1, Prov. 18:10). This usage is carried into the N.T. (Lk. 1:49; and see notes on 1:12, 17:11).

Thus “I am come in the Name of my Father” does not only mean “I am come as His representative, having been sent by Him,” although it includes this (see 7:28, 8:42); but it conveys the idea that the Incarnate Son reveals the Father in His character and power. Cf. 14:26.

καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετέ με, “but you do not receive me,” καί being used as an adversative conjunction, where we would expect ἀλλά or καίτοι (see on 1:10). The Fourth Gospel is truly described as in one aspect “the Gospel of the Rejection”; cf. 1:11, 3:11, 32, 12:37.

ἐὰν ἄλλος ἔλθῃ κτλ., “if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.” Abbott (Diat. 2677) calls attention to the use of ἄλλος rather than ἕτερος: “if another come (professing to be of the same kind as myself), etc.” Cf. 2 Cor. 11:4 ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν. Such a pseudo-Christ would appear only “in his own name,” i.e. not representing or revealing the name and the nature of God, as Jesus did.

Schmiedel² finds here (so too Hilgenfeld and Pfleiderer) an allusion to the rising of Barcochba about 134 a.d., which led to the extinction of the Jewish State. On this hypothesis, the Fourth Gospel (for there is no sign that this verse is an interpolation) would be later in date than Barcochba. But the words are quite general in their reference, and are comparable with Mk. 13:6, 22 (cf. Mt. 24:5, 24): “Many shall come in my Name … there shall arise false Christs and false prophets.” This is one of the few passages in which Jn. reproduces sayings of Jesus comparable with the Synoptic predictions of the last things (see Introd., pp. cxxix, clix). Bousset¹ finds an allusion to the coming of Antichrist (cf. 2 Thess. 2:8–12), but the context does not call for any definite reference to the success of false Messiahs, of whom many have appeared.

44. The cause of the Jews’ unbelief is traced here to the desire for popular applause and favour. “All their works they do for to be seen of men” is a judgment on the Pharisees found in Mt. 23:5. “They loved the glory of men more than the glory of God” is Jn.’s verdict about some who hesitated to acknowledge their belief in Jesus (12:43). But the saying recorded in this verse goes deeper. Faith, Jesus seems to say, is impossible in any vital sense for the man who measures himself only by human standards. He who has that vivid sense of the unseen, which is faith, instinctively seeks in his conversation and conduct to win the approval of God, in comparison with which nothing else seems to be important.

πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεῦσαι, δόξαν παρὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες κτλ.; ὑμεῖς is emphatic: “How can such as you believe, who think more of the honour that comes from men, than of that which God can bestow?” The true Jew, as Paul says, is on the other hand one “whose praise is not of men but of God” (Rom. 2:29). Cf. the words of Mordecai’s prayer: “I did this that I might not prefer the glory (δόξα) of man to the glory of God” (Esth. 13:14).

For πιστεύειν used absolutely, the object of faith not being expressed, see on 1:7.

καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε. B W and (in one place) Origen omit θεοῦ, but it is certainly part of the true text. The archetypes would have had ⲙⲟⲛⲟⲩⲑⲩⲟⲩ, from which θυ could very readily have been dropped.

The only δόξα worth having is that which comes from “the Only God” (cf. 1:14). For the phrase ὁ μόνος θεός, see 2 Kings 19:15, 19, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 37:20, 2 Macc. 7:37, 4 Macc. 2:23 (and cf. Jn. 17:3. Rom. 16:27, Jude 25, Rev. 15:4): the Jews were convinced monotheists. It is not upon the unity of God that Jesus here lays stress, but upon the fact that there is no other worthy Fount of honour. Cf. 8:54.

45. For μὴ δοκεῖτε, δοκῖτε always having reference in Jn. to a mistaken opinion, see on v. 39 above.

μὴ δοκεῖτε ὅτι ἐγὼ κατηγορήσω ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. It would appear that some of His hearers were beginning to be uneasy. He might be what He claimed to be, and if that happened to be so, would not His accusation of them to God be hard to rebut? So, in answer to these thoughts, expressed or unexpressed, He bids them be sure that His office at the Great Assize will not be that of Prosecutor. It has been said earlier in the chapter (v. 27) that He will be the Judge; but upon that no stress is laid here (cf. 12:47, 48; and see on 3:17).

Their prosecutor, or accuser, will be the person whom they expected to be their advocate, sc. Moses. Their national claim was that they were disciples of Moses (9:28; cf. 7:19), and Moses had given them the law of the Sabbath, the breach of which by Jesus had initiated this controversy (v. 16). Surely, Moses would defend their cause. But, on the contrary, they are told: ἔστιν ὁ κατηγορῶν ὑμῶν, Μωϋσῆς, εἰς ὃν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε (cf. Deut. 31:21).

This verse has all the marks of historicity. No one would think of inventing a denial by Jesus of the suggestion that He was to be the Accuser of the Jews at the Last Judgment. But it is quite natural in the context in which it appears.

εἰς ὃν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε, “on whom you have set your hope,” i.e. in whom you hope, in quo uos speratis, as the Vulgate correctly renders. ἐλπίζειν does not occur again in Jn., but the use here of the perfect tense to indicate that the hope continues in the present and is not merely an emotion of the past, has parallels at 1 Cor. 15:19, 2 Cor. 1:10, 1 Tim. 4:10, 5:5, 6:17. The aor. ἤλπισα occurs only twice in the N.T., sc. 2 Cor. 8:5, 1 Pet. 1:13, which is remarkable, as in the LXX the perfect ἤλπικα is never used, but always the aorist (e.g. Ps. 7:1, 16:1 etc.). Again, the constr. ἐλπίζειν εἴς σινα is rare in the LXX (cf. Ps. 119:114, 145:15, Isa. 51:5), where the prep. ἐπί is nearly always used. In the N.T., too, we generally have ἐπί, but εἰς in Acts 26:7, 2 Cor. 1:10, 1 Pet. 3:5. Thus the only exact parallel in the Greek Bible to the phrase in this verse is εἰς ὅν ἠλπίκαμεν of 2 Cor. 1:10, a sound Greek construction.¹

46. εἰ γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε Μωϋσεῖ κτλ., “if you believed Moses, you would believe me,” the imperfect tenses indicating a continuing belief.

περὶ γὰρ ἐμοῦ ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψεν, “for it was of me that he wrote” (cf. 12:41). Deut. 18:18, 19 is cited as Messianic in Acts 3:22, and it is regarded by Cyprian (Test. i. 18) as the passage to which reference is specially made here. It was one of the first O.T. testimonia to be claimed by Christians. At 3:14, the brazen serpent is mentioned as a type of Christ; and at 8:56 reference is made to Abraham’s prevision of Christ’s work Cf. Lk. 24:27, when no doubt many other types and prophecies were explained. It is probable that Jesus adduced specific passages in support of His statement that Moses had written of Him, but we cannot tell what they were. Only a summary of His argument is before us.

47. εἰ δὲ τοῖς ἐκείνου γράμμασιν κτλ., “but if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” There is a double contrast, between ἐκείνου and ἐμοῖς, and between γοάμμασιν and ῥήμασιν. The argument, If you do not believe Moses, how will you believe Christ? would not have appealed to a Christian of any age; but it was addressed here to Jews, for whom the authority of Moses was the greatest they knew (cf. Lk. 16:31), and in such a context was weighty. Here, again, it is plain that Jn. is reproducing with fidelity the kind of argument which Jesus used in Jewish controversy. Upon the contrast between γράμματα, “writings,” and ῥήματα, “sayings,” no special stress is laid, although these γράμματα were reckoned as ἱερὰ γράμματα (2 Tim. 3:15) and as entitled therefore to special reverence. If Jesus were no other than an ordinary Rabbi, it would be obvious that his authority as a teacher would be far inferior to that of the sacred writings, consecrated by a long tradition.

The ῥήματα of Jesus are mentioned again 6:63, 68, 8:20, 12:47, 48, 14:10, 15:7, 17:8 (see on 3:34 above).

The constr. εἰ … οὐ, as an undivided phrase, is noted by Abbott (Diat. 2256) as occurring again in Jn. only at 10:37.

7:15. We have given above (see Introd., p. xix) the reasons for taking vv. 15–24 of c.7 as following directly on 5:47. Jesus has appealed to the γράμματα of Moses as establishing His claims, and had probably (see on 5:47) quoted specific passages, commenting on them as He went along. This amazed the Jewish leaders, who had thought that such learning was confined to those trained in the Rabbinical schools, and they had never heard of Jesus as a disciple of any prominent Rabbi.

ἐθαύμαζον οὖν, “So they began to express wonder”; cf. v. 46 and Mk. 12:17, Lk. 2:47, 4:22.

πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδεν μὴ μεμαθηκώς; It was not so much the wisdom of His words that astonished them as His knowledge of the Jewish writings, which probably included the Rabbinical traditions that had gathered round the Old Testament, as well as the Old Testament itself. In Isa. 29:12 μὴ ἐπιστάμενος γράμματα means a man who cannot read, an “illiterate.” For ἀγράμματος in Acts 4:13, see Introd., p. xxxvi. But in the present passage, μὴ μεμαθηκώς seems to mean rather “not having been the μαθητής of a recognised teacher.” The tradition of His scribbling upon the ground [8:6] shows that Jesus was not illiterate in the strict sense; and it is unlikely that this would have been suggested by the Jewish Rabbis who had engaged in controversy with Him.

16. Ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμή κτλ. Here only does Jesus call His message διδαχή, a “teaching”; it is a significant word, as He is now dealing with the professional διδασκάλοι. That His teaching is not His own, but the Father’s, is repeated often (8:28, 12:49, 14:10, 24); and this has already been said in effect at 5:30. διδαχή occurs again in Jn. only at 18:19; cf. 2 Jn. 9, 10.

The answer of Jesus to the Jews’ objection that He had never learnt from a recognised Rabbi is remarkable. He does not say (which might seem to us the natural answer) that He needed no Master. Indeed, Mk. reports that it was a feature of His teaching to the multitudes that it was given “with authority, and not as the scribes” (Mk. 1:22), i.e. that He appealed in His popular teaching to no Rabbinical precedents; and the Synoptic discourses sufficiently illustrate this. But in cc. 5 and 7:15–24 we have the report of a long-drawn-out argument with the Rabbis, and it is conducted throughout (see on 5:31) in the style of the Jewish schools. If Jesus had said, in reply to their implied question “Whose disciple are you?” that He was no man’s disciple, but that He spoke of His own authority, they would at once have told Him that He was an impostor and adventurer. But, exactly as at 5:31, He follows their line of thought. He does not claim to be self-taught, which would only have aroused contemptuous indignation; but He claims that His teacher was the Father who had sent Him, as He had said so often before (cf. especially 5:36–38).

17. ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν κτλ., “If any man set his will (θέλῃ, is expressive of deliberate purpose) to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, etc.” The Synoptic form of this saying is to the effect that it is only the man who does God’s will who can enter into the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 7:21). That right conduct is a necessary preliminary to accurate belief about Divine things, and conversely that the cause of unbelief is often a moral cause, are propositions which are repeated frequently in Jn. They are specially pressed in this controversy with the Jewish leaders. Jesus had claimed that He sought, not His own will, but τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (5:30); and He goes on to suggest that it is just because this could not be said of the Rabbis that they had failed to accept His Divine mission. It is their moral nature that is at fault (5:38, 42). Cf. for similar teaching 8:31, 32, 47, 14:21; it is all summed up in the tremendous assertion, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (18:37). Cf. Ps. 25:14.

πότερον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἑστιν ἢ ἐγώ κτλ. The classical constr. πότερον … ἢ … occurs only here in the N.T. πότερον is found again in the Greek Bible only in the Book of Job (cf., e.g., Job 7:12).

ἐκ θεοῦ is the reading of א D, but B L T W Θ have ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, which is the regular Johannine form (1 Jn. 4:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7).

That Jesus did not “speak from Himself” is repeated 12:49, 14:10, al. it is also said of the Spirit, “He shall not speak from Himself” (16:13). Jesus, again and again, repudiates the idea that He does or says anything apart from the Father (cf. 5:30, 7:28; and see 8:28). The repeated disclaimer of originality for His teaching is foreign to modern habits of thought. But originality, or departure from precedent, or the idea that there is any merit in being self-taught, were all equally distasteful to Jewish scholasticism.

18. ὁ ἀφʼ ἐαυτοῦ λαλῶν τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἰδίαν ζητεῖ κτλ. He returns to what He has said at 5:41 (where see note), and He repeats it again 8:50, 54. The contrast is between the teacher who represents himself as the fount of knowledge, and him who speaks as a herald and ambassador of a superior from whom he has what he has. The former seeks his own honour (for δόξα means “honour” here, see on 1:14); the latter is only concerned to proclaim the truth that he has received, and in proclaiming it he seeks to bring honour to him from whom he received it. The former, therefore, may be under suspicion of false teaching; but the latter has no self-interest to further, οὗτος ἀληθής ἐστιν. There is no ἀδικία “unrighteousness,” in him, such as is several times contrasted by Paul with “truth” (Rom. 2:8, 1 Cor. 13:6, 2 Thess. 2:12).

The special form of ἀδικία with which Jesus had been charged was that of Sabbath-breaking (5:10, 18), and He now brings the discussion back to this, by making a direct attack on His Jewish critics. They blamed Him for a technical breach of the Sabbath, but it was their own practice to condone such breaches in special circumstances (v. 23). His argument from v. 19 to v. 24 is ad hominem.

Ps. 40:8 provides a parallel for the sequence of thought, vv. 17–19, which perhaps is fortuitous:

τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου, ὁ θεός μου, ἐβουλήθην,

καὶ τὸν νόμον σου ἐν μεσῷ τῆς καρδίας μου.

In Ps. 40:8 τὸν νόμον σου in the second line corresponds, after the fashion of Hebrew poetry, to τὸ θελημά σου in the first line. The argument, implied but not explicitly stated, of vv. 17–19, is that if a man does not will to do God’s will, he has not God’s law in his heart, and does not keep it.

19. οὐ Μωϋσῆς ἔδωκεν (so B D; א L T Γ Δ N W Θ have δέδωκεν) ὑμῖν τὸν νόμον; Moses gave the Law in all its bearings for a Jew (see on 1:19), but here the reference is specially to the Mosaic law of the Sabbath (v. 23). Jesus turns their appeal to the authority of Moses against themselves, as at 5:46.

καὶ (καὶ being used for καίτοι, as at 5:38, 40; see on 1:10) οὐδεὶς ἐξ ὑμῶν (cf. 16:5, 17:12: Mk. 11:1, Lk. 14:24 preferring to omit ἐκ in similar constructions; cf. 13:28, 21:12, and see on 1:40) ποιεῖ τὸν νόμον. No one, He urges, keeps the Mosaic law of the Sabbath with minute scrupulosity in all circumstances, and He goes on to mention an admitted exception (v. 23).

τί με ζητεῖτε ἀποκτεῖναι; See on 5:18, where it has been recorded, ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι.

20. ἀπεκρίθη ὁ ὄχλος κτλ. The crowd had been listening with eagerness to the controversial discussion between Jesus and the Rabbis (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, v. 15); and they interrupt now to disclaim the idea that there was any thought of killing Him. This is a lifelike touch. It was not the “people,” but the “Jews,” who had begun the plot; the people knew nothing of it.

δαιμόνιον ἔχεις. The same thing was said of John the Baptist, as an explanation of his asceticism (Mt. 11:18); and later on, Jn. records that the Jewish leaders, or some of them, accused Jesus of being possessed with a demon (8:48, 49, 10:20; cf. Mk. 3:22). But here it is the people who say “Thou hast a demon,” meaning not to impute moral blame but mental infirmity. It is a well-known sign of insanity to believe that other people are in league against one. “Who seeks to kill you?” It is only your disordered imagination which makes you suspect it (cf. Mk. 3:21). See Introd., p. clxxvii.

21. Jesus does not answer the insulting suggestion that He is out of His mind. He goes back to His statement that no Jew keeps the Sabbatical law after a fashion which admits of no exception.

ἓν ἔργον ἐποίησα καὶ πάντες θαυμάζετε. This has generally been interpreted as meaning, “I did one miracle, and you all marvel.” But such a pronouncement is not in harmony with the context. Nothing has been said throughout 5:1–47 or 7:15–24 to indicate that the observers, whether the simple folk or the Jewish leaders, had seen anything extraordinary in the cure of the impotent man, or had expressed any wonder. Indeed, 5:20 suggests that “greater works” would be necessary, if their wonder was to be aroused. Nor, again, would an appeal made by Jesus at this point to the miraculous nature of what He had done be apposite to the argument which He is developing. That argument has to do with one point only, sc. His alleged breach of the Sabbath; and it would be no answer to the charge of breaking the Sabbath to tell His critics that what He had done had been miraculous, and to remind them that they had been astonished.

We have seen above (5:20) that Jn. frequently speaks of the wonderful works of Jesus as His ἔργα; but there is no instance of a specific miracle being referred to as ἔργον in the singular (as σημεῖον is used, 4:54), unless 10:32 be regarded as an exception: πολλὰ καλὰ ἔργα ἔδειξα ὑμῖν … διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον λιθάζετέ με; ἔργον in the sing. occurs again in Jn. only at 4:34, 17:4 (of the work which the Father prescribes to the Son) and at 6:29 (of the work which God desires of man).

Furthermore, stress is laid here on the singularity of the “work” that has been “done” by Jesus. “I did one work.” But in the course of the preceding argument He had appealed to the “works,” in the plural, which bore witness to His claims (5:36, where see note). There would be no point in now singling out one ἔργον only, as having excited wonder because of its extraordinary character; and it would be surprising if that one were singled out, of which it is not recorded that it caused any astonishment.

Accordingly we render ἓν ἔργον ἐποίησα, “I did one work,” sc. of labour, and interpret it as having reference to the matter originally in dispute, sc. that He had broken the Sabbath.¹ The law was, πᾶς ὃς ποιήσει ἔργον τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἐβδόμῃ, θανατωθήσεται (Ex. 31:15, 35:2). Jesus admits, in terms, that He has broken this law on the particular occasion to which His critics refer. ἓν ἔργον ἐποίησα κτλ., “I did one work,” sc. on the Sabbath, “and you are all astonished,” θαυμάζειν indicating that they were puzzled, as at 3:7, 4:27. Their astonishment was not caused by the extraordinary nature of the cure, but by the circumstance that Jesus had ventured to cure the man on a Sabbath day.

We take θαυμάζετε with διὰ τοῦτο which follows: “you are all astonished by this.” Cf. ἐθαύμασεν διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν (Mk. 6:6), where the reason of astonishment is indicated by διά with the acc., as here. διὰ τοῦτο is often used by Jn. in relation to what follows (see on 5:16); while the more common usage, in accordance with which it relates to what has gone before, is also adopted several times in the Gospel (see on 9:23), although there is no other instance in Jn. Of διὰ τοῦτο coming at the end of a sentence.

The tendency of the versions is to take διὰ τοῦτο as beginning the next sentence: “Therefore Moses, etc.” But, in that case, διὰ τοῦτο is difficult to interpret, and involves a very elliptical construction. It would mean “For this very cause, Moses gave you the ordinance of circumcision, knowing that it would conflict with the strict law of the Sabbath; sc. in order that he might teach you that the Sabbatical precepts admit of exceptions and are not always to be enforced literally.” This would give a tolerable sense, but it strains the force of διὰ τοῦτο too far, and introduces a very subtle reason (not suggested elsewhere) for the rule that circumcision must always be on the eighth day after birth. It is simpler to take πάντες θαυμάζετε διὰ τοῦτο as one sentence, “You are all astonished at this act of mine.”

א* Omits διὰ τοῦτο, thus cutting the knot of the difficulty by treating the words as a later gloss.

22. Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν περιτομή. περιτομή does not occur elsewhere in the Gospels; but we have περιτέμνειν (Lk. 1:59, 2:21). The ordinance of circumcision on the eighth day after birth is re-enacted, Lev. 12:3.

οὐχ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Μωϋσέως ἐστὶν ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν πατέρων. This is an evangelistic comment on the words of Jesus, interpolated exactly as at 12:6, οὐκ ὅτι … ἀλλʼ (see Introd., p. xxxiv). The covenant of circumcision went back to Abraham (Gen. 17:10, 21:4, Acts 7:8). For τῶν πατέρων, see on 6:58.

Even if the eighth day after the birth of the child fell on a Sabbath, the act of circumcision was performed. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) cites the Rabbinical rule: “Rabbi Akiba saith, ‘Work that may be done on the eve of the Sabbath must not be done on the Sabbath, but circumcision … may be done on the Sabbath.’ ”¹

Justin uses the argument of the text in the Dialogue with Trypho (§ 27), appealing to the injunction to circumcise on the Sabbath.

23. εἰ περιτομήν κτλ. “If a man receives circumcision on a sabbath, in order that the law of Moses (sc. the law relating to circumcision, Lev. 12:3) may not be broken, are you angry with me because on a Sabbath I made the whole man healthy?” A somewhat similar idea appears in the Rabbinical writings: “Circumcision, which has to do with one member only, breaks the Sabbath; how much more the whole body of a man?”² The contrast is between the treatment of one member, and of the whole body (ὅλον ἄνθρωπον). If the lesser thing is permitted, why not the greater? The argument is comparable with that of Mt. 12:11, Lk. 13:15, by which a technical breach of the Sabbath is defended, but is unlike that of 5:17, where see the note.

ὁ νόμος Μωϋσέως is a comprehensive term for the whole Jewish law, or for a particular enactment: cf. Lk. 2:22, 24:44, Acts 15:5 (this passage referring to the law of circumcision), 1 Cor. 9:9 etc. λύειν is used at 5:18 of breaking the law of the Sabbath. The word ὑγιής goes back to 5:9, 14.

24. μὴ κρίνετε κατʼ ὄψιν, “do not judge by looks,” i.e. superficially, the too frequent weakness of the Pharisees, which is rebuked again ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα κρίνετα (8:15). Cf. Isa. 11:3 οὐ κατὰ τὴν δόξαν κρινεῖ, and 2 Cor. 10:7. ὄψις occurs again in the N.T. only at 11:44 and Rev. 1:16, and then in the sense of “face.”

ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνατε, “but judge righteous judgment,” i.e. be fair. The expression is used of the judgments of God, Tob. 3:2. Cf. also Zech. 7:9 κρίμα δίκαιον κρίνατε. The constr. κρίσιν κρινειν is common (Isa. 11:4) and is also classical (Plato, Rep. 360 E).

א Γ Δ Θ have κρίσιν κρίνατε (the authoritative aorist im perative; see on 2:5), but B D L T N W give κρίνετε.

This is the last word of the controversy which arose out of the healing of the impotent man at Bethesda, sc. 5:1–47, 7:15–24; and naturally, the Jewish leaders were indignant. Cf. 7:1.

7:1. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα περιεπάτει κτλ. SO א^caB C*L Γ Δ Θ, but א C²D W with most syrr. latt. om. καί, which may be an editorial addition. N has καὶ περιεπάτει μετʼ αὐτῶν ὁ Ἰης. κτλ., and the rec. also goes wrong with καὶ περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰης. μετὰ ταῦτα κτλ.

μετὰ ταῦτα is the beginning of a new section of the narrative, and reasons have been given (Introd., p. xix) for placing 7:1–14 in direct sequence to cc. 5, 7:15–24.

After the severe rebukes which Jesus had addressed to the Rabbis, already exasperated by the breach of the Sabbath and His lofty claims (5:18), it was natural that He should withdraw from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem for a while. He had gone up to Jerusalem for the Passover, and after that He healed the impotent man (5:8). Then controversy ensued, and in 5:19–47, 7:15–24 we have a summary of the main points on which stress was laid, the discussions probably extending over some days. If we suppose that He left Jerusalem about the month of May, there is time for a ministry of four or five months in Galilee, before He returned to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles at the end of September. Jn. gives no details of this Galilæan ministry, but there is room in these months for many of the incidents recorded in the Synoptic Gospels as having taken place in Galilee (see on v. 3).

The narrative of the events in Jerusalem after Jesus went up to the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 10) is full of movement and of local colour. Presumably (see on 5:1) the Twelve attended the Feast of Tabernacles, and were again in the company of Jesus after He went up.

περιεπάτει. This is the natural word for the itinerant ministry of a Rabbi accompanied by His disciples; cf. 6:66, 11:54. (For the larger meaning of περιπατεῖν, see on 8:12.) Jesus was “walking in Galilee,” because the Jews, as has just been said (7:19), were seeking His life.

For the phrase ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκιεῖναι, see on 5:18.

2. ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτή κτλ. This was the Feast of Tabernacles of the year 28 a.d. See on 5:1.

The Feast of Tabernacles (σκηνοπηγία) was originally a Feast of Ingathering or a Harvest Festival, and was not at first held on a fixed date, but “at the year’s end” (Ex. 34:22), according to the time when the harvest was gathered. The Deuteronomic Code calls it “the Feast of Tabernacles” (Deut. 16:13), and prescribes that it is to be kept for seven days. The reason for its name assigned in the Priest’s Code is that “I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt” (Lev. 23:43). In the same Code the annual date is fixed; it was to begin on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Tishri), going on for seven days (Lev. 23:34). That is, it was held at the end of September or the beginning of October. In Num. 29:35 an eighth day of observance appears, on which was to be “a solemn assembly,” and we find this eighth day observed in post-exilic times (Neh. 8:18, 2 Macc. 10:6). Josephus, who mentions the eighth day (Anti. iii. x. 4), calls this feast ἑορτὴ σφόδρα παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις ἁγιωτάτη καὶ μεγίστη (Anti. viii. iv. i), thus marking its important place in Jewish life, it being, pre-eminently, the Feast of the Jews. For the ritual observed, see on 7:37 and 8:12.

3. For the “brethren of Jesus,” see on 2:12. They were older than He was, and this may explain their venturing to offer Him advice as to His conduct. The discussion between them and Him, which is reported vv. 3–8, could only have been known to one who was in intimate relations with the family; and there could be no motive for setting it down in narrative, if it had not actually taken place.

μετάβηθι ἐντεῦθεν, “depart hence”: μεταβαίνειν is used 13:1 of departing from this world, and metaphorically 5:24, 1 Jn. 3:14.

καὶ ὕπαγε (a favourite word with Jn.; see on v. 33) εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν, ἵνα καὶ οἱ μαθηταί σου θεωρήσουσιν τὰ ἔργα σου ἅ ποιεῖς. The advice seems to have been ironical, for they go on to express doubts about His alleged “works,” saying εἰ ταῦτα ποιεῖς, “if you do such things.” The suggestion is that the rumour of these ἔργα was confined to Galilee, and that if He were to establish His reputation in Judæ, it would be desirable that His disciples there should have an opportunity of seeing what He could do.

We have already heard of many disciples in Judæa (2:23, 4:1); indeed, it was because their number excited the jealousy of the Pharisees that He had left Judæa on a former occasion (4:3). But there was little of miracle there on His last visit; the cure of the impotent man is not described as a “sign,” and it had attracted attention rather because it had been wrought on a Sabbath day, than because of its marvellousness (5:5f.; and cf. 7:21, where see note). The “works” to which the brethren of Jesus make reference here are those of Galilee, perhaps the Miracle of Cana (2:1f.) or the Healing of the Nobleman’s Son and other sick folk (4:46f., 6:2), or the Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:5f.), or more probably healings wrought between His departure from Jerusalem and His going up again for the Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 1, 14), i.e. during the summer of the year 28. Nothing is told about them by Jn., but the words τὰ ἔργα σου ἅ ποιεῖς, “the works which you are doing,” suggest that the reference is not to anything that He had done months before the date of the conversation, but to quite recent events. And, as has been suggested on v. 1, some of the Galilæan miracles recorded by the Synoptists may be placed at this period in the ministry as narrated by Jn.

The allusion to the μαθηταί here cannot be to the Twelve, for they had been witnesses of many of the wonderful things that Jesus had done, and were already convinced of the truth of His claims. Nor can the allusion be to the Galilæan disciples who were disheartened by the difficulty of His teaching and left Him on a former occasion (6:66), for they would not be in the way of seeing miracles wrought at Jerusalem, whither His brethren advised Him to transfer His activities. We conclude, then, that the μαθηταί whom His brethren suggested He should confirm in their allegiance by displays of His power, were those in Judæa and at Jerusalem. If, indeed, He was to succeed in the Mission for which He claimed the highest sanctions, He must convince Jerusalem. And His brethren were right in the view they took of this. They did not accept His claims, as yet at any rate (v. 5), but they understood clearly that it was at the Holy City that they must either be proved or disproved.

θεωρήσουσιν: So א^cB*D L N W, although ἵνα with the future indic. is rare in Jn. (cf. 17:2). א* has θεωροῦσιν, and Γ Δ Θ read θεωρήσωσιν.

4. The principle laid down by the brethren of Jesus is sound, sc. that no one who seeks public recognition can afford to keep his deeds a secret. οὐδεὶς γάρ τι ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖ καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι, “No one does anything in secret, and (at the same time) himself seeks to be in the public eye.”

For αὐτός B D*W have αὐτό, through misunderstanding. παρρησία (from πᾶν ῥῆμα) expresses primarily a complete openness and freedom of speech (cf. Mk. 8:32, the only place where the word occurs in the Synoptics), and in this sense it is a favourite word with Jn.; cf. 7:13, 26, 10:24, 16:25, 29, 18:20 (where ἐν κρυπτῷ and ἐν παρρησίᾳ are again contrasted). It is thus, according to Prov. 1:20, that Wisdom speaks: ἐν πλατείαις παρρησίαν ἄγει. The word then comes to connote intrepidity or courage; and it is used in 1 Jn. 2:28, 3:21, 4:17, 5:14 of boldness in man’s attitude to God (cf. Job 27:10).

In this passage ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι signifies “to be boldly in public view,” as in 11:54, where we have οὐκέτι παρρησίᾳ περιεπάτει ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις; cf. Wisd. 5:1, Col. 2:15. What the brethren of Jesus suggest is that to hide Himself in Galilee is incompatible with the claim for public recognition, as One sent by God, which He makes for Himself.

εἰ ταῦτα ποιεῖς, “if you do these things,” sc. the wonderful works with which rumour associated His name. The brethren do not express definite unbelief, but they are sceptical.

φανέρωσου σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ, “show thyself to the world,” i.e. to the great public at Jerusalem (cf. v. 7), where multitudes would be gathered at the Feast of Tabernacles. The wider meaning of κόσμας (see on 1:9) cannot be intended, as present to the minds of the brethren of Jesus. For φανερόω, see on 1:31; and cf. 14:22.

5. οὐδὲ γάρ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίτευον (D L W have ἐπίστευσαν, which is plainly wrong) εἰς αὐτόν. The form of the sentence suggests that it is remarkable that His own kinsfolk did not believe in Jesus, the imperfect tense indicating their general attitude. For the constr. πιστεύειν εἰς αὐτόν, see on 1:12. It is a favourite constr. in Jn., and it implies a belief in Jesus, as distinct from mere belief in His doctrine. It is used thus throughout this chapter (vv. 31, 38, 39, 48; and cf. 8:30), and its use at this point means that the brethren of Jesus did not believe in Him as Messiah. Their incredulity, as reported by Jn., is in accordance with the Synoptic narratives (cf. Mk. 3:21, Mt. 12:46, 13:57).

ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πάρεστιν, “my time is not yet come.” καιρός is a word which Jn. uses only in this passage; it stands for the moment of opportunity, the fitting occasion, rather than for the “predestined hour” (ὥρα), on which the Fourth Gospel dwells with such insistence (see on 2:4). The fitting time had not yet come, Jesus says in reply to the suggestion, “reveal Thyself to the world” (v. 4); and by this is meant not the hour of His Passion, but rather the best time for that public manifestation of Himself as Messiah, which He would make when He went up to the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 8). Such public declaration was made, when He did go up: cf. vv. 29, 33, 8:12, 28 etc.

ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὁ ὑμέτερος πάντοτέ ἐστιν ἕτοιμος. Their case was different from His. It did not matter when they went up to the feast; it was one of strict obligation, but the exact day on which they would present themselves in Jerusalem was of no consequence, provided that they attended. Any day would be a fitting day (καιρός) for them to arrive, for they would not be received with hostility, but rather with indifference.

7. οὐ δύναται ὁ κόσμος μισεῖν ὑμᾶς, “the world (see on v. 4) cannot hate you,” ὑμᾶς being emphatic. We have adopted (see on 2:12) the ancient belief that “the Lord’s brethren” were children of Joseph by his first wife, and were not numbered among the Twelve. The language of this verse shows, at any rate, that Jn. did not regard them as members of that select company, for it assumes that there was no reason why they should be regarded with disfavour by the Jews who were hostile to Jesus, as His accredited followers would certainly be (cf. 15:18).

ἐμὲ δὲ μισεῖ. Cf. 15:18, 23, 24. The κόσμος which “hates” Jesus is that world which Jn. describes as lying in wickedness, 1 Jn. 5:19 (see on 1:9). But here the reference is only to the hostile Jews, as appears from the words which follow.

ὅτι ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρά ἐστιν. He had denounced the Jews recently, and had said that their unbelief was due to moral causes (5:42–45), wherefore they hated Him. Such denunciation was a form of His “witness” to the truth (cf. 18:37). See on 3:19, where the phrase ἦν αὐτῶν πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα has already appeared.

8. ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε (the regular word for going up to Jerusalem; see on 2:13) εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν. א*Γ Δ add ταύτην here, but om. א^caB D L T N W Θ. ὑμεῖς is emphatic, “Go ye up to the feast.”

ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, “I (on the other hand) am not yet going up to this feast.”οὔπω is read by B L T N WΓ Δ Θ, but א D Syr. cur. have οὐκ. If οὔπω be read, Jesus is represented as saying that He is not going up immediately, as His brethren would have Him do. If we read οὐκ, His words would seem to convey to His hearers that He was not going up at all to this particular feast; and in that case He altered His plans afterwards (v. 10).

ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς (this is the true reading here, as against ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμός, which the rec. text reads, from v. 6 above) οὔπω πεπλήρωται. This is a repetition of the reason given in v. 6, with slight verbal changes, the stronger word πεπλήρωται being substituted for πάρεστιν. The fitting moment had not yet arrived for His public proclamation of His Messiahship. The repetition of the same thought in slightly different words is a feature of Jn.’s style. See on 3:16.

9. ταῦτα δὲ εἰπὼν αὐτὸς ἔμεινεν κτλ. So א D*L N W, while B T Γ Δ Θ have αὐτοῖς. But the emphatic αὐτός is thoroughly Johannine.

10. ὡς δὲ ἀνέβησαν κτλ., “when His brethren had gone up to the feast,” the aor. being used like a pluperfect (cf. 2:9 and 4:44).

τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέβη. This was His farewell to Galilee, as the scene of His public ministry.

οὐ φανερῶς ἀλλὰ ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷ, “not openly” (i.e. not with the usual caravan of pilgrims), “but, as it were, in secret,” or privately. ὡς is omitted by א D, but, ins. B L T N W. There was nothing secret about His movements or His teaching when He reached Jerusalem (7:26, 28; and cf. 18:20), but He did not go up publicly with the other pilgrims from Galilee. We find mention of disciples with Him at 9:2, but it is not certain that these were the Twelve (see note in loc.).

11. οἱ οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι ἐζήτουν αὐτόν κτλ., “So the Jews (i.e. the hostile leaders; see on 1:19) were looking for Him at the feast”; οὖν perhaps being not merely conjunctival, but having reference to the fact that Jesus, having gone up to Jerusalem privately, was not in public view.

ποῦ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος; “Where is He?” So at 9:12. ἐκεῖνος, ille, does not carry with it any suggestion of rudeness or hatred, as Chrysostom supposed. It occurs very often in Jn. (see on 1:8).

12. καὶ γογγυσμὸς περὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς ὄχλοις. The order of the words is uncertain, but the variants are of no consequence. For γογγυσμός, the murmuring of a crowd, not necessarily hostile, see on 6:61, and cf. v. 32. The plural of οἱ ὄχλοι occurs only here in Jn. The reference is to the different groups of people that were gathered in the city, the Galilæan visitors among them. א D have ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ, but the plural is probably right.

As might have been expected, the gossip of the crowds was partly favourable, partly hostile. Some said ἀγαθός ἐστιν (cf. vv. 40, 43). This was an adjective of which He had deprecated the application to Himself, as really saying too little (Mk. 10:18). Others said πλανᾷ τὸν ὄχλον, “He leads the people astray,” probably with allusion to His healing on the Sabbath day at the previous Passover season, and His claim to Divine prerogatives (5:18); cf. v. 47.

For τὸν ὄχλον, the Leicester cursive 69 has τοὺς ὄχλους, an eccentric reading which would hardly call for notice were it not that the Vulgate, in common with the O.L. ef, has turbas. This is one of the instances in which Jerome has been supposed to have used Greek manuscripts no longer extant.

13. οὐδεὶς μέντοι παρρησίᾳ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ. For παρρησία, see on v. 4; and for παρρησίᾳ λαλεῖν, cf. 7:26, 16:29, 18:20.

διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων. The phrase is repeated 19:38, 20:19, in both cases, as here, the reference being to the ecclesiastical authorities who terrorised the people; cf. 9:22, 12:42. The common people were afraid to express any opinion in favour of Jesus, recollecting that, on His last visit, “the Jews” had been anxious to put Him to death (5:18).

Jesus Teaches in the Temple: He Attracts the People, But the Sanhedrim Seek His Arrest (vv. 14, 25–36)

14. ἤδη δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς μεσούσης κτλ., “When the feast was half over.” The Feast of Tabernacles lasted for eight days (see on v. 2), so that this note of time (see Introd., p. cii, for Jn.’s liking for such notes) means that it was about the fourth day of the feast that Jesus presented Himself publicly in the Temple. The verb μεσοῦν is not found again in the N.T., but it occurs in the LXX; cf. μεσούσης τῆς νύκτος (Ex. 12:29, Judith 12:5).

ἀνέβη Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ἱερόν. The Temple was on a hill, so that ἀνέβη is the appropriate word (cf. Lk. 18:10). The art. ὁ is omitted before Ἰησοῦς here by א B L T, appearing in D N W Γ Δ Θ (but see on 1:29).

καὶ ἐδίδασκεν, “and began to teach”; cf. v. 28, 8:20; 18:20. This is the first notice of the public teaching of Jesus in Jerusalem, as distinct from the answers to objectors recorded in c. 5.

25. The section introduced by v. 14, and then including vv. 25–36, has no reference to the Sabbatical Controversy.¹ The discussion about the breach of the Sabbath by Jesus, begun in c. 5, and ending with 7:15–24, is not continued on this visit to Jerusalem, which took place some months after the former one (see on 7:1). About the fourth day of the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:14) Jesus began to teach publicly in the Temple, and His teaching attracted the attention of the citizens, who began to ask themselves if He might not be the Messiah after all, although the Jewish leaders were seeking to arrest and silence Him (7:25–27). At this point, Jesus declares openly that His mission is from God, and that in a short time He will return to Him (7:28–33). His strange language about Himself disconcerts the Pharisees, who say scornful words (7:35, 36), but they do not arrest Him on this occasion.

Some of the Jews were impressed by the public teaching now begun (v. 14). τινες ἐκ τῶν Ἱροσολυμειτῶν, sc. the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as distinct from the multitudes of country folk who had come up for the feast. The term Ἱεροσολυμεῖται is found in N.T. only here and Mk. 1:5 (cf. 4 Macc. 4:22, 18:5).

The Vulgate has ex Hierosolymis here instead of ex Hierosolymitanis, which the Oxford editors suggest may be due to the use by Jerome of some Greek text now lost. But Hierosolymitanis appears in d f q as Hierosolymitis, from which the transition is easy to Hierosolymis.

These shrewd townsmen were surprised that their religious leaders were seeking the death of One who spoke with such power. With ὅν ζητοῦσιν ἀποκτεῖναι, Cf. v. 1.

παρρησίᾳ. For this word see on v. 4, and for παρρησίᾳ λαλεῖ, the openness with which Jesus taught, see on 18:20. The citizens were surprised that He had been allowed to teach without interference from the rulers, καὶ οὐδὲν αὐτῷ λέγουσιν.

μή ποτε is not used elsewhere by Jn. Cf. its similar use in Lk. 3:15, where the people are wondering about John the Baptist, μή ποτε αὐτὸς εἴη ὁ Χριστός. So here: “Can it be that the rulers in truth know that this is the Christ?” οἱ ἄρχοντες describes generally the members of the Sanhedrim (for the constitution of which, see below on v. 32). Cf. v. 48, 3:1, 12:42; and see Lk. 23:13, 35, 24:20.

27. However, the Jews dismiss as untenable the thought which had passed through their minds that Jesus might be the Messiah (cf. 4:29), and that their “rulers” knew it. ἀλλά …, Nay, but …

τοῦτον οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν, “this man, we know whence he is.” Cf. 6:42, where “the Jews” said that they knew the family of Jesus. There was no mystery about Him now, as they thought. Many people knew His home at Nazareth (Mt. 13:55). Presumably His disciples were with Him hence forward.

ὁ δὲ Χριστός ὅταν ἔρχηται, οὐδεὶς γινώσκει πόθεν ἐστίν. The birthplace of Messiah was held to be known, sc. Bethlehem (see on v. 42), but all else as to the time or the manner of His Advent was believed to be hidden. Westcott quotes a Rabbinical saying, “Three things come wholly unexpected—Messiah, a godsend, and a scorpion” (Sanhedr. 97a). The phrase “will be revealed” used of His appearance, 2 Esd. 7:28, 13:32, and in Apocalypse of Baruch xxix. 3, suggests (as Charles has pointed out) an emergence from concealment; and with this agrees the Jewish doctrine described in Justin, Tryph. 110, “They say that He has not yet come … and that even if He has come, it is not known who He is (οὐ γινώσκεται ὅς ἐστιν), but that when He has become manifest and glorious then it shall be known who He is.” At an earlier point (Tryph. 8) the Jewish interlocutor says of the Christ, “If He be born and is anywhere, He is unknown, and does not even know Himself (ἄγνωστός ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται), nor has He any power until Elijah having come anoints Him and makes Him manifest to all.” These passages show that the evangelist accurately reports here the Jewish doctrine as to the mysterious emergence of Messiah from obscurity.

ἔρχηται. So B D L T W; א D*N Θ have ἔρχεται. ὅταν with the pres. subj. is rare in Jn. (cf. 8:44, 16:21), although not uncommon elsewhere (e.g. Mk. 12:25, 13:4, Lk. 11:2, 21).

28. ἔκραξεν. κράζειν is used only once in the Synoptists of Christ’s utterances, viz. Mt. 27:50, where it is applied to the cry from the Cross. Jn. does not so apply it, but it is used by him three times to describe public and solemn announcements of doctrine by Jesus (7:37, 12:44; cf. also 1:15, where it is used of the Baptist’s proclamation). Cf. ἐκραύγασεν, 11:43.

ἐκραξεν οὖν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων …, “So then (οὖν, in reply to the scepticism displayed by His audience) Jesus cried aloud, as He was teaching in the temple” (cf. v. 14). There was nothing secret about this teaching (cf. 18:20 and Mt. 26:55).

κἀμὲ οἴδατε καὶ οἴδατε πόθεν εἰμί. This is not ironical or interrogative, but affirmative. It was true that they knew Him and His family (v. 27), but there was more to know. There is no inconsistency with 8:14, where see note.

καὶ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλήλυθα, “and yet I have not come of myself.” καί is used for καίτοι as it is in v. 30 below, in accordance with an idiom frequent in Jn. (see on 1:10). The phrase ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ αὐκ ἐλήλυθα is repeated 8:42 (where see note). Cf. 5:30, 8:28, 12:49, 14:10.

ἀλλʼ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς ὁ πέμψας με, “but He that sent me is genuine” (see on 1:9 for ἀληθινός as distinct from ἀληθής). The mission of Jesus was a genuine mission; He did not come to earth of Himself, but was sent by the Father (see on 3:17). The Father was genuinely His Sender.

ὅν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε. Despite the fact that the Jews “knew what they worshipped” (4:22), they did not know God’s character and purposes, and this scathing rebuke is addressed to them again (8:19, 55). That it might be said of heathen was not surprising (Gal. 4:8, 1 Thess. 4:5, 2 Thess. 1:8), and the persecutions of Christians in the future were mainly to spring from this ignorance (cf. 15:21); but here the sting of the words “whom ye know not,” is that they were addressed to Jews, the chosen people.

ἐγὼ οἴδα αὐτόν. This is repeated verbally 8:55, and again at 17:25 in the form ἐγὼ δέ σε ἔγνων. These three words contain the unique claim of Jesus, which is pressed all through the chapters of controversy with the Jews. But it is not more explicit, although it is more frequently expressed, in Jn. than in Mt. 11:27, Lk. 10:22.

ὅτι παρʼ αὐτοῦ εἰμι, “because I am from Him.” See on 6:46 for similar phrases in Jn., which imply a community of being between the Father and the Son (cf. 1:14 and 16:27, 28).

κἀκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν. This sentence is not dependent upon ὅτι. “I know Him, because I am from Him,” is the first point. “And He sent me” is the second (see on 3:17), ἐκεῖνος emphasising the main subject of the sentence, as so often in Jn. (see on 1:8).

30. ἐζήτουν οὖν αὐτὸν πιάσαι, “Then (sc. in consequence of the claims for Himself made by Jesus, vv. 28, 29) they (sc. the Jewish leaders already indicated as His opponents, vv. 1, 25) sought to arrest Him.” This had been their purpose ever since the healing at the pool of Bethesda on a Sabbath day (5:16), their desire being to put Him to death (5:18, 7:1, 25). The impf. ἐζήτουν marks in each case that the action was not completed; and so again at 7:44 (ἤθελον) and 10:39 (ἐζήτουν). The original offence, of breaking the Sabbath (5:16, repeated 9:16), comes less into prominence now, because of the greater offence of blasphemy (5:18) with which they henceforth charge Him.

πιάζειν, to “take,” is not found in the Synoptists; Jn. uses it again vv. 32, 44, 8:20, 10:39, 11:57 of “arresting” Jesus (cf. Acts 12:4, 2 Cor. 11:32), and at 21:3, 10 of “catching” fish.

καὶ οὐδὲς ἐπέβαλεν ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὴν χεῖρα, “and yet (καί being used for καίτοι, as often in Jn.; see on 1:10) no one laid his hand on Him,” the ecclesiastical authorities, no doubt, fearing to arrest one who had won attention from the people (cf. Mt. 21:46). These words are repeated almost verbatim at v. 44 τινὲς δὲ ἤθελον ἐξ αὐτῶν πιάσαι αὐτόν, ἀλλʼ οὐδεὶς ἐπέβαλεν ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας: cf. also 8:20, 10:39.

Jn. is at pains to bring out at every point that the persecution and death of Jesus followed a predestined course. The Jews could not hasten the hour determined in the Divine purpose, and so the evangelist adds here, ὅτι οὔπω ἐληλύθει ἡ ὥρα αὐτοῦ, the same words being added in a similar context at 8:20 (cf. vv. 6, 8; and see on 2:4).

31. ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου δὲ πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν. Those who “believed on Him” (see for the phrase on 4:39) were of the common people rather than of the upper classes (cf. vv. 48, 49). See 9:16.

καὶ ἔλεγον κτλ., “and they were saying, When the Christ shall come, will He do more signs than this man did?” (cf. Mt. 12:23). Jesus had not yet told them plainly that He was Messiah (10:24).

After ἔλεγον the rec. ins. ὅτι recitantis, but om. א B D L W Θ. After ὅταν ἔλθῃ the rec. has μήτι, but the better reading is μή (א B D L T W). After σημεῖα the rec. has τούτων, but om. א B D L T N W Θ. For ἐποίησεν (א^cB L T N W), א*DΘ and some vss. have ποιεῖ.

πλείονα σημεῖα. Jn. does not profess to tell of all the “signs” which Jesus wrought, but he alludes here (and at 2:23) to some which he has left undescribed.

πλείονα σημεῖα ποιήσει; Messiah was expected to be a miracle worker. The prophet had declared that in His kingdom “the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing” (Isa. 35:5, 6). A corresponding expectation of Messianic “signs” is found in the Synoptists as well as in Jn. Thus John the Baptist is stimulated to inquire further when he hears of “the works of the Christ” (Mt. 11:2; cf. Lk. 7:18); and one of the difficulties in the way of detecting “false Christs” is to be their power of showing “signs and wonders,” which were a note of the true Messiah (Mk. 13:22). It was because Bartimæus recognised Jesus as “the Son of David” that he believed He could restore his sight (Mk. 10:48).

It is therefore a mistake to speak¹ of the Messianic significance of miracles as a Johannine peculiarity; it appears also in the Synoptists, although more conspicuously in Jn. (cf. 2:23 4:19). The evangelist is true to the historical situation when he notes that the Jews expected “signs” from Messiah, as indeed they did from any one claiming to be a prophet (2:18, 3:2, 6:14, 9:17; cf. 1 Cor. 1:22). And the aim of the Fourth Gospel is to record selected “signs” of Jesus with the express purpose of proving Him to be the Christ (20:31).

32. οἱ φαρισαῖοι: see on 1:24. The Pharisees had heard the whispered talk of the people (cf. v. 12), and they determined to silence Jesus. Accordingly they brought the matter before the Sanhedrim, so that measures might be taken for His arrest.

The Sanhedrim (συνέδριον) was the supreme council or high court of justice in Jerusalem during the period of the Roman occupation, and successive procurators left the administration of the law for the most part in its hands. It had no power to carry into execution a sentence of death, but it was the uniform policy of the Roman administration to support its authority. Three classes of members may be distinguished: (1) The ἀρχιερεῖς, that is, the acting high priest, all ex-high priests, and probably some of their sons.¹ They were the political, as well as the ecclesiastical, aristocrats of Jerusalem; and they occupied a position not unlike that of the Holy Synod in Russia before the Revolution, which comprised only the leading bishops, and had as presiding officer a highly placed layman. Their interests were centred in the Temple, and they had little concern for the synagogues, large part as these played in Jewish religious life. They were of the party known as that of “the Sadducees,” a designation occurring only once in Mk., and not at all in Jn. (2) A second class, also belonging to the Sadducee interest, were known as πρεσβύτεροι or elders: they were not priests, but were generally associated with them in policy, both the ἀρχιερεῖς and the πρεσβύτεροι being in opposition to (3) the third class, who were the Pharisees or scribes or lawyers (the titles γραμματεύς and νομικός are not found in Jn.). They were learned in the Jewish law and in the traditions that had grown up around it, being the party of austere and strict religious observance. Their influence showed itself in the synagogues rather than in the Temple, for the details of the ceremonial worship there did not come within their province. They regarded with apprehension the departure from traditional doctrines which Jesus encouraged, and it was they who first brought His teaching before the Sanhedrim (cf. 12:19). They associated themselves with the priestly or Sadducean party in bringing about His arrest and condemnation (18:3, Mt. 27:62), although the chief priests appear as the principal agents. Cf. 11:49.

ἀπέστειλαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι ὑπηρέτας. The rec. text has οἱ Φαρ. καὶ οἱ ἀρχ., but א B D L T W Θ place the chief priests first in order, which is obviously right. Without the consent of the ἀρχιερεῖς, the arrest of Jesus could not have been ordered by the Sanhedrim. οἱ ἀρχ. καὶ οἱ Φαρ. are coupled together again 7:45, 11:47, 57 (as also Mt. 21:45, 27:62), and the combination stands for the Sanhedrim as an organised council or court. They now sent officers of the Sanhedrim, or, as we might say, “Temple police” (ὑπηρέτας; cf. v. 45, 18:3, 12, 18, 19:6), to make the arrest, which some of them had been seeking (ἐζήτουν, v. 30) to bring about.

33. εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰη. If we press the causative force of οὖν, the meaning is that Jesus said that He would be only among them a little while longer, so that there was nothing to be gained by arresting Him. οὖν, however (see on 1:22), is not always to be rendered “therefore,” and may be only a conjunction, “and so.”

ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν κτλ. The end of His ministry was near, and He knew it; it would come in “a little while”—in fact in about six months. The phrase μικρὸν χρόνον (or μικρόν alone) is repeatedly on His lips henceforth, according to Jn. (12:35, 13:33, 14:19, 16:16). Cf 9:4.

The rec. has μικρὸν χρόνον (D NΓ Δ), but א B L T W Θ give the order. χρ. μικρ.

καὶ ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πέμψαντά με. The words are repeated 16:5. For the phrase “Him that sent me,” frequent in Jn., see on 3:17. This was a saying of mystery, and the Jews could not understand it.

ὑπάγειν is a favourite verb with Jn., and it is often used in the Gospel of Jesus “going to God” (cf. 8:14, 21, 13:3, 33, 36, 14:4, 5, 28, 16:5, 10, 17). It means strictly “to depart,” and so is specially appropriate of the withdrawal of Christ’s visible presence from among men, and His “going to the Father” or “going home.” See on 15:16, 16:7; and cf. Mk. 14:21 ὁ μὲν υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει, καθὼς γέγραπται.

34. ζητήσετε. This is certainly the true text, only two MSS., II and 69, reading ζητεῖτε. None the less, the Vulgate has quaeritis, this being one of the renderings which suggest to some that Jerome followed a type of Greek manuscript of which we know little.¹

ζητήσετέ με καὶ οὐχ εὑρήσετε. B T N add μέ after εὑρήσετε:om. א D L W Γ Δ Θ. “Seek and ye shall find” (Mt. 7:7) is the promise of Jesus; but the seeking may be so long delayed that the promise cannot be claimed. Cf. Lk. 17:22 and Prov. 1:28. So, here, the warning is of the danger of delay. “Ye shall seek me,” sc. (not, as at v. 30, to kill me, but) as the Messiah for your deliverance, “and ye shall not find,” for Jesus will not be present in the body, as He was then.

καὶ ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγώ κτλ., “and where I am,” sc. in my essential being, in the spiritual world, “you cannot come.” There is no contradiction between μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμί of v. 33 and this statement; for the former only asserted His visible, bodily presence, whereas the latter (εἰμὶ ἐγώ) spoke of His spiritual home. This can be shared only by those who are in spiritual touch with Him (12:26, 17:24), as the Jews were not (cf. 8:21). Even His disciples, as He reminded them later, could not follow Him to the heavenly places while they were still in the body (13:33, 36).

35. εἶπον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι πρὸς ἑαυτούς, “the Jews said among themselves,” i.e. the Jewish leaders or Pharisees of v. 32.

ποῦ οὗτος μέλλει πορεύεσθαι; “Where is this person (οὗτος suggesting contempt) about to go?” They did not understand what Jesus had said (vv. 33, 34) in words of mystery. μέλλειν here only indicates simple futurity (see on 6:71 for Jn.’s use of this verb).

ὅτι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρήσομεν αὐτόν. They speak ironically, feeling that it will be impossible for Him to escape them. ἡμεῖς is omitted by א D, but ins. B L T N Δ Γ Θ. Cf. 8:22.

μὴ εἰς τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν Ἑλλήνων κτλ., “Will He go to the Dispersion of the Greeks?” i.e. to the Jews who lived among Greek populations. Jews who lived out of Palestine were the διασπορὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (Ps. 147:2, Isa. 49:6), and the term is often applied to them (cf. Isa. 11:12, 56:8, Zeph. 3:10, Jer. 15:7, etc.). In 1 Pet. 1:1 (where see Hort’s note), we have διασπορὰ Πόντου, Ἀσίας, etc., the place of their residence being thus indicated. So here, ἡ διασπορὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων is “the Dispersion among the Greeks.”

καὶ διδάσκειν τοὺς Ἕλληνας; “and teach the Greeks,” i.e. the heathen Greeks themselves, among whom the Jews of the Dispersion lived. (See on 12:20 for Ἕλληνες as indicating Greek proselytes, which is not the meaning here.)

The Palestinian Jews of the stricter sort looked down on the Jews of the Dispersion and despised all Gentiles. There is, then, something contemptuous in their suggestion that Jesus may be contemplating a journey to foreign parts, where He may make disciples of Hellenistic Jews or even of the Greeks themselves. It is an instance of the “irony” of the evangelist (see on 1:45) that he does not stay to make the obvious comment that what the Jewish critics of Jesus thought so absurd was afterwards accomplished by the first preachers of His gospel, which embraced both Greek and Jew.

36. Yet they are puzzled and uneasy, for they repeat His strange saying of v. 34 again: “What is this word which He said, You shall seek me and shall not find me, and where I am you cannot come?”

B D L N W Θ give ὁ λόγ. οὗτ., as against οὖτ. ὁ λόγ. of א Γ Δ.

A Special Appeal to the People, Who are Divided in Opinion, to the Indignation of the Pharisees (vv. 37–49)

37. Jesus seems to have continued His teaching daily, or at any rate continuously, in the Temple; and on the last day of the feast, He made a special and final appeal to His hearers to accept His message.

εἱστήκει¹ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Jesus, like other teachers, was accustomed to sit as He taught (see on 6:3); but at this point, to emphasise the momentousness of His words, He rose and cried out (see on 7:28 for ἔκραξεν, and cf. Prov. 8:3, 9:3, 5), “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” Cf. Isa. 55:1.

ἐρχέσθω πρός με. So א^cB L N T W Θ, but א*D om. πρός με. Cf. 6:35.

“The last day, the great day, of the Feast” of Tabernacles was probably the eighth day (see on 7:2), on which were special observances. The ritual on each day, and probably on the eighth day also (although this seems to be uncertain), comprised an offering of water, perhaps (when the rite was initiated) symbolising abundance of rain to ensure a good crop at the next harvest. Rabbi Akiba says as much: “Bring the libation of water at the Feast of Tabernacles, that the showers may be blessed to thee. And accordingly it is said that whosoever will not come up to the Feast of Tabernacles shall have no rain.”¹ At any rate, a golden vessel was filled with water from the Pool of Siloam, and the water was solemnly offered by the priest, the singers chanting, “With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation” (Isa. 12:3).

This water ceremonial may have suggested the words of Jesus: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.”

38. καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή κτλ. ἡ γραφή always indicates a specific passage in the O.T. (see on 2:22), although (cf. v. 42 below) the quotation may not always be exact. Here, the source of the quotation cannot be identified with certainty, although, as we shall see, the idea of v. 38 is scriptural. The fact that we cannot precisely fix the quotation makes for the genuineness of the reminiscence here recorded. A writer whose aim was merely to edify, and who did not endeavour to reproduce historical incidents, would not have placed in the mouth of Jesus a scriptural quotation which no one has ever been able to identify exactly.

(1) Chrysostom confines the quotation to the words “he that believeth in me,” taking the rest of v. 38 as words of Jesus. Thus the “scripture” might be Isa. 28:16, quoted in Rom. 9:33 in the form ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. But this exegesis is a mere evasion of the difficulties.

(2) Some ancient Western authorities connect πινέτω with ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ which follows, putting a stop after ἐμέ: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and let him drink that believeth on me. As the Scripture saith, Out of His belly shall flow rivers of living water.” By this arrangement, αὐτοῦ is understood of Christ, not of the believer.

The colometry of the O.L. codices d and e would agree with this punctuation.² The Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons³ has … τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἐξιόντος ἐκ τῆς νηδύος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Which takes αὐτοῦ as meaning Christ. So also Cyprian has “clamat dominus ut qui sitit ueniat et bibat de fluminibus aquae uiuae quae de eius uentre fluxerunt.”¹ Many Western Fathers are cited to the same effect by Turner.² Loisy and some other modern exegetes favour this view.

Burney held that this arrangement of clauses represented the sense, the Greek κοιλία being due to a misunderstanding of the underlying Aramaic, and a confusion of מְעִין “belly” (cf. Dan. 2:32) with מַעְיָן “fountain.” He rendered v. 38 accordingly, “As the scripture hath said, Rivers shall flow forth from the fountain of living waters,” the allusion being to Ezek. 47:1. C. C. Torrey³ also appeals to the Aramaic, rendering “As the Scripture hath said, Out of the midst of her (i.e. Jerusalem) shall flow rivers of living water,” the reference being to Zech. 14:8. These explanations are ingenious, but they do not disclose any exact citation from the O.T.

(3) We prefer the Eastern exegesis here. Origen is explicit in his reference of αὐτοῦ to the believer in Christ: εἰ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος εἴρηται ὡς ὕδωρ ζῶν ποταμῶν δίκην ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ πιστεύοντος …⁴ So, too, Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xvi. 2), Basil⁵ (in Ps. 46:4), and Athanasius (Festal Letters, ix. 7, 44.).⁶ That Christ is the ultimate source of living water, which represents the Spirit, is common to all interpretations; but these writers understand also that those who receive it from Him hand it on in their turn to others.⁷ So in the Odes of Solomon (vi.) we have Christ the χείμαρρος⁸ or torrent of living water spreading over the world, while the ministers of this draught of the Spirit relieve many. This is the Johannine doctrine of the Spirit, appearing again in another form at 20:23.

The reference of ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ to the believer is in strict correspondence with the earlier passage 4:10–14, where it is said of the water which Christ gives that it will be in the believer πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. The imagery of “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,” goes back to Isa. 55:1; and similarly (as at 4:14) the imagery of v. 38 goes back to Isa. 58:11: “Thou shalt be like a spring of water whose waters fail not.” As we have seen on 4:14, this idea appears in many places in Hebrew literature, although the actual words cannot be traced. He who has drunk deep of the living waters which are the gift of Christ becomes himself, in his turn and in humbler measure, a fountain from which the water of life flows for the refreshment of others.

The κοιλία is regarded in the O.T. as the seat of man’s emotional nature (Prov. 20:27). Water is often symbolic of the Divine Law (see on 4:10), and the Law is “in the heart” (Ps. 40:8) of Yahweh’s servant, or, as some LXX texts have it, ἐν μέσῳ τῆς κοιλίας μου.The Psalm goes on: “I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart, I have declared thy faithfulness” (Ps. 40:10). So again in Prov. 18:4 we have: ὕδωρ βαθὺ λόγος ἐν καρδίᾳ ἀνδρός, ποταμὸς δὲ ἀναπηδύει καὶ πηγὴ ζωῆς. Hence the O.T. conception is that the Divine Law is in the heart (καρδία or κοιλία) of one inspired by the Spirit of Yahweh, like a fountain which cannot be repressed, but which perpetually sends forth a stream of living water. This is the Johannine teaching of 7:38.

The use of κοιλία is in accordance with the Semitic habit of expressing emphasis¹ by mentioning some part of the body, e.g. “the mouth of Yahweh hath spoken it,” “His arm wrought salvation.” “Out of his belly” is only an emphatic way of saying “From him shall flow.” The living waters to the thought of the prophets (Zech. 14:8. Ezek. 47:1) flowed from a holy place, viz. Jerusalem; but here they are said to flow from a holy man, viz. one who has believed in Christ.

There is no difficulty in the construction, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ being a suspended subject; cf. 15:5 ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοί … οὖτος φέρει καρπόν, and see on 1:12.

39. τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος. We have here an explanatory comment by the evangelist on the words of Jesus which precede it; see, for similar comments, Introd., p. xxxiv. In this passage, at any rate, there can be no question of the accuracy of the interpretation. The Living Water symbolises the Spirit, which believers in Christ (not only the original disciples) were (ἔμελλον, cf. 6:71) to receive (cf. 16:13. 1 Jn. 3:24, 4:13). As Paul has it πάντες ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν (1 Cor. 12:13), the metaphor, of the Spirit as water, being the same as here.

Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. iii. 322) quotes a passage from the Talmud, showing that even by the Jews the libation of water at the Feast of Tabernacles (see on v. 37) was taken to symbolise the outpouring of the Spirit: “Why do they call it the house of drawing? Because thence they draw the Holy Spirit” (Beresh. Rabba, fol. 70. 1). The Jews held that the Holy Spirit had departed after the deaths of Zechariah and Malachi, the last of the prophets, and they looked for a future outpouring (Joel 2:28; cf. Acts 2:17).

The various readings are mainly due to attempts at interpretation. א D Γ Δ Θ have πιστεύοντες, but B L T W have πιστεύσαντες, the words primarily referring to the reception of the Spirit by the original group of disciples. B has ὅ for the better attested οὖ. In the second clause of the verse, scribes have defined πνεῦμα by the insertion of ἄγιον (L N WΓ Δ), D reading τὸ πνεῦμα ἄγιον ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς and B ἄγιον δεδομένον. L N T WΓ Δ have οὐδέπω for οὔπω (the reading of א B D Θ before ἐδοξάσθη.

οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα, i.e. the Spirit was not yet operating or not yet present, εἶναι being used for παρεῖναι, as in Acts 19:2 ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἔστιν ἠκούσαμεν. The Ephesian disciples could not have doubted the existence of the Holy Spirit; it was His presence or His operation of which they were doubtful. See also on 6:20.

Attempts have been made to distinguish τὸ πνεῦμα, with the article, from πνεῦμα without it; the former standing for the personal Spirit, the latter for a gift or manifestation of the Spirit. The distinction may hold sometimes, but here it is hard to maintain it: “He spake περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος, which they who believed on Him were to receive: for πνεῦμα was not yet.” We should expect, if the proposed rule about the article were sound, that at its first occurrence in this verse πνεῦμα should be without it. See above on 3:6, 4:24.

οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα, ὅτι ὁ Ἰησοῦς οὔπω ἐδοξάσθη. Here Jn. introduces a conception, not explicit outside the Fourth Gospel, of the Passion of Jesus as His “glorification” (see on 1:14). It is the word used by Jesus Himself (12:23, and by anticipation 13:31), and Jn. uses it again in his narrative (12:16). This is the supreme illustration of the saying that “he that hateth his life shall keep it” (see on 12:25). It is the continual paradox of the Gospel that death is the beginning of new life. And so it was not until Jesus had been “glorified” in death that the Spirit came upon those who were “in Him.” The seed is not quickened except it die, and, to the thought of Paul, it was not until His Resurrection after death that Christ became a Quickening Spirit, πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν (1 Cor. 15:45). Not until He had passed through death could His Spirit descend. Not until the Passion was over could He say λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον (20:22). Pentecost was, necessarily, after Calvary. This great conception is common to Paul and Jn. (cf. 10:17, 12:32); and it follows from it that the death of the Incarnate Word was His “glorification.” Cf. 17:1, and see further on 16:7.

The verb δοξάζεσθαι is used more than once of the death of a Christian martyr in later literature. Not only in the case of Christ (12:16, 23, 13:31) might it be said that martyrdom was a “glorification” of the martyr himself; e.g. in the Canons of Peter of Alexandria (circa 300 a.d.) we have: οὔτω Στέφανος πρῶτος κατʼ ἴχνος αὐτοῦ μαρτύριον ἀναδεξάμενος … ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ ἐδοξάσθη.¹ The τροπαῖον of a martyr, his sign of victory, was the place of his death.²

40. That many of the multitude (ὄχλος) believed in Jesus’ claims has been told already (v. 31).

ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου οὖν ἀκούσαντες τῶν λόγων τούτων κτλ. We must supply τινές (as at 16:17: “some of the crowd.” The rec. text inserts πολλοί (from v. 31), but om. א B D L N T W Θ. Again, the rec. text reads τὸν λόγον, but א B D L N have τῶν λόγων τούτων.

We are not to take vv. 40–43 as referring exclusively or particularly to the effect produced by the great pronouncement of vv. 37, 38. τῶν λόγων τούτων include the whole of the teaching which Jesus had given during the feast (vv. 25–38). This teaching was appreciated by some of His hearers, for ἀκούειν followed by a gen. implies (see on 3:8) an intelligent and obedient hearing (a point which is obscured by the acc. τὸν λόγον of the rec. text).

No doubt, the climax of the teaching was reached vv. 37, 38. The hearers of the words, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” recognised that the claim involved was that He, of whose disciples such a thing could be asserted, was inspired in a peculiar degree by the Spirit of Yahweh. He must be the authorised exponent and missionary of the Law. Accordingly, some identified the speaker with “the prophet,” the predestined successor of Moses. (See on 1:21 and 6:14.)

41. ἄλλοι ἔλεγον κτλ. Others went further, and said He was the Messiah Himself (cf. vv. 26, 31; and see on 1:20). The imperfects ἔλεγον … ἔλεγον indicate that such was the common talk.

For οἱ δὲ ἔλεγον in the second clause (B L T NΘ), ἄλλοι ἔλεγον is given again by א D Γ Δ, and this may be right; cf. ἄλλοι … ἅλλοι at 9:9.

μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ χριστὸς ἕρχεται; The introductory μὴ γάρ implies a negative answer.

41, 42. “Doth the Christ come out of Galilee?” They were incredulous, because the Scriptures had led them to believe that He would be “of the seed of David” (2 Sam. 7:12, 13. Ps. 132:11, Isa. 11:1, Jer. 23:5), and from Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2), David’s village (1 Sam. 17:15); and they were surprised that One coming from Galilee should be regarded as fulfilling these conditions. It is characteristic of the “irony of St. John” (see on 1:45) that he does not stay his narrative to make any comment. His readers were, he was sure, well instructed in the Christian tradition that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, while His home was at Nazareth in Galilee. See on v. 52.

The suggestion (see on 1:44) that in Jn. the prepositions ἀπό and ἐκ may be distinguished in usage, the former applying to domicile and the latter to birthplace, will not apply here. Micah (5:2) said of Bethlehem ἐξ οὖ μοι ἐξελεύσεται, but this is changed to ἀπὸ Βηθλεέμ (v. 42); and not only so, but the preposition ἐκ is applied to Galilee, where ἀπό would be more appropriate, if the distinction could be sustained. See on 11:1.

43. σχίσμα οὖν ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ διʼ αὐτόν. The people were divided in opinion about Him, as before (v. 12). A similar σχίσμα among the “Pharisees” and “Jews” is noted again, 9:16, 10:19.

44. This verse is repeated, with slight changes, from v. 30, where see note; cf. also 8:20.

τινὲς δὲ ἤθελον κτλ., “some were inclined to arrest Him,” sc. some of the crowd, who were divided in the view they took of Jesus and His words (cf. v. 40, ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου). At v.30 it was not the common people, but the Jewish leaders, who sought to lay hands on Him.

ἔβαλεν is supported by B L T, but א D N W Γ Δ Θ give the stronger form ἐπέβαλεν, as at v. 30.

Other differences between v. 30 and v. 44 (apart from the omission in v. 44 of Jn.’s statement in v. 30 that the reason why the arrest of Jesus was not made was that “His hour had not come”) are: (1) ἤθελον is not so strong as ἐζήτουν. Some of the crowd were inclined to arrest Jesus, but they did not seek to make the arrest, as His Jewish opponents did. (2) For the characteristic Johannine use of καί instead of καίτοι at v. 30, we have here the more usual ἀλλά. (3) For τὴν χεῖρα of v. 30 we have τὰς χεῖρας at v. 44. Abbott (Diat. 2575) suggests that χεῖρα may be explained as Hebraic and χεῖρας as Hellenic, comparing Esth. 6:2 where, for the Hebrew “lay hand on,” the LXX has ἐπιβαλεῖν τὰς χεῖρας. But this is too subtle.

45. The report of the Temple police, who had been ordered (v. 32) to arrest Jesus, now follows, with a notice of the protest made by Nicodemus.

No arrest had been made, evidently because the differences of opinion about Jesus and His claims were obvious, and it might not have been safe. So the police officers (ὑπηρέται) report to the Sanhedrim (πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ φαρισαίους) that they had done nothing. But they (ἐκεῖνοι, i.e. the Sanhedrim) ask why their orders were not obeyed, διὰ τί οὐκ ἠγάγετε αὐτόν;

It should be observed that the section, vv. 45–52, narrating the anger of the Sanhedrim at the failure to arrest Jesus does not necessarily belong to this particular point in the narrative; although it suits the context, it would suit other contexts equally well. See on 8:12.

46. The answer to the question, “Why did you not bring Him?” is surprising and unwelcome: “Never did man so speak.” These official servants of the Sanhedrim had been impressed, as the Galilæan peasants had been impressed (Mt. 7:28, 29), by the power of Jesus’ teaching. It is not to be supposed that vv. 33, 34, 37, 38, give more than fragments of what He said since the order was given for His arrest (v. 32); but it is noticeable that it was His words, not His works, that attracted attention, and it must have been disconcerting to those who were habitual teachers of the Law, to learn that the words of the new Teacher had made so deep an impression. His words were unique and without parallel, as also were His works, which He said were such as “none other did” (15:24).

After οὐδέποτε ἐλάλησεν οὕτως ἄνθρωπος, א*D NΘ add ὡς οὗτος (λαλεῖ) ὁ ἄνθρωπος. These additional words are omitted by א^cB L T W, but the sense remains unaltered.

47. The Pharisees, the most forward in the persecution of Jesus, as being the most zealous in the cause of Jewish orthodoxy, reply for the rest μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς πεπλάνησθε; “Are you also led astray?” See on 6:67 for the form of the question, which suggests that a negative answer is expected. Cf. v. 12 for πλανᾶν.

48. μή τις ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπίστευσεν εἰς αὐτόν; “Did a single one of the rulers believe in Him?” the form of the question, μή τις, implying that a negative answer was the only possible one. Yet, a little later, this astonishing thing had come to pass, ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν (12:42); but at this moment it seemed incredible. See on v. 32 for the ἄρχοντες, and cf. v. 50.

ἢ ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων; “Or a single one of the Pharisees?” Only a select few of the Pharisees were in the Sanhedrim, but the Pharisees generally were the most orthodox of all the inhabitants of Jerusalem (cf. 1:24, 7:32).

The ὑπηρέται are blamed severely because they did not do as they were told, and it is truly remarkable that they had not arrested Jesus. Subordinate officers, the Pharisees seem to say, have no right to judge of the expediency of an order which they have received.

49. ἀλλά ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν. The Rabbis had a profound contempt for the unlettered multitude, עם הארץ, who were not learned in the Torah. ἐπάρατος does not occur again in the N.T.

50. λέγει Ν. πρὸς αὐτούς, sc. to the Pharisees. For this constr., see on 2:3.

εἷς ὢν ἐξ αὐτῶν, sc. being a member of the Sanhedrim, and so taking up the challenge of v. 48. For the constr., see on 1:40.

Most MSS. add ὁ ἐλθὼν πρὸς αὐτὸν πρότερον, thus identifying Nicodemus with the person described in 3:1. א* omits the words; NΓ Δ insert νυκτός (from 3:2), omitting πρότερον; D has νυκτὸς τὸ πρῶτον (the true reading at 19:39).

If the story of Nicodemus could be held to belong to the last week of the ministry (see on 3:1), then this passage would be the first mention of him, and the words omitted by א* would be, in that case, a later gloss added by an editor.

51. The expostulation of Nicodemus is characteristic of the cautious timidity of the man. He rests his case on a recognised principle of law, and suggests that the procedure intended by the Sanhedrim will be illegal; but he does not explicitly espouse the cause of Jesus (see on 3:1). That a report should not be received without scrutiny (Ex. 23:1), and that both sides should be heard (Deut. 1:16), are principles implied in the Jewish legislative code.

With τὸν ἄνθρωπον, sc. “any man,” cf. 2:25, Mt. 10:36. Less probably it might be rendered “the man,” i.e. the man who is accused (cf. Mt. 26:72).

ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ πρῶτον παρʼ αὐτοῦ. Field (in loc.) points out that ἀκούειν παρά τινος is a classical phrase for hearing a man in his own defence; but the phrase occurs in Jn. in other passages where this is not implied (see on 1:40).

52. The members of the Sanhedrim had no sympathy with the plea for delay which Nicodemus put forward. Was he also a Galilæan, like the Galilæan whose case he was defending? (see v. 41). Let him search, and he will see that it is not from Galilee that a prophet is arising. These aristocrats of Jerusalem had a scornful contempt for the rural Galilæans.

For ἐγείρεται (א B D T N W Θ) the rec. has ἐγήγερται. If the reading ἐγήγερται were correct, the assertion that from Galilee no prophet has arisen would be obviously untrue. Jonah, at any rate, was a Galilæan, for he was of Gath-hepher (2 Kings 14:25), which was in Galilee (Josh. 19:13). And possibly Hosea, whose prophecies were concerned with the Northern Kingdom, was also a Galilæan.

There was nothing in O.T. tradition to suggest that Galilee was an inferior district of the Holy Land. Isaiah, in particular, had sung of the days when Zebulun and Naphtali should be made glorious “beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles”¹. (Isa. 9:1). It is not likely, therefore, that the saying ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας προφήτης οὐκ ἐγείρεται was a proverb, as the form of the sentence might suggest. It is a merely contemptuous assertion, “Out of Galilee is not arising a prophet” (cf. v. 41). See on 1:46.

For the verb ἐραυνᾶν, see above on 5:39, the only other place where it is found in Jn. Possibly ἐραύνησον has reference here also to a searching of the Scriptures; but it is more probable that the meaning is “if you will take the trouble to look, you will see that out of Galilee no prophet is arising.” Cf. 2 Kings 10:23 ἐρευνήσατε καὶ ἴδετε, where ἐρευνήσατε is only ampliative of ἴδετε, as here.

The section (περικοπέ) of the Fourth Gospel which contains this incident is contained in many late manuscripts and versions, but it cannot be regarded as Johannine or as part of the Gospel text.

The section is omitted also in important cursives, e.g. 22, 33, 565 (in which minuscule there is a note that the scribe knew of its existence). The Ferrar cursives, i.e. fam. 13, do not give it in Jn., but place the section after Lk. 21:38, where it would be, indeed, in better agreement with the context than before Jn. 8:12. Cursives 1, 1582, and some American MSS. place the section at the end of the Fourth Gospel. Cursive 225 places it after Jn. 7:36.

Even more significant is the absence of any comment on the section by Greek commentators for a thousand years after Christ, including Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus (in his metrical paraphrase), who deal with the Gospel verse by verse. The earliest Greek writer (Euthymius Zygabenus or Zygadenus) who comments on it lived about 1118, and even he says that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

Further, the evidence of vocabulary and style is conclusive against the Johannine authorship of the section. The notes which follow demonstrate this sufficiently. Nor in its traditional place does it harmonise with the context. It interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12f.; while 7:53 is not in harmony with what goes before, and has no connexion with 8:12f.

The early Greek evidence in favour of the mediæval view that the section is an authentic part of the Fourth Gospel reduces itself to the witness of Codex Bezae (D), a manuscript with many other Western interpolations. The section is found in the great mass of later uncials and cursives, whatever be the reason of this intrusion into the more ancient text. To be borne in mind, however, is the significant fact that in many of the later MSS. which contain it, the Pericope de adultera is marked with an obelus (e.g. S) or an asterisk (e.g. ΕΜΛ).

The Latin evidence in its favour is considerable. The section appears in several O.L. texts, e.g. b e (sæc. v.) and ff₂ (sæc. vii.), as well as in Jerome’s Vulgate. Jerome says expressly “in multis graecis et latinis codicibus inuenitur de adultera,” etc. (adv. Pelag. ii. 17). Augustine (de conj. adult. ii. 6) accounts for its omission from some texts, by hinting that the words of Jesus which it records might seem too lenient.

The section is found also in some late Syriac and Coptic texts, while omitted in the earlier and better versions.

These facts show that the authorities on the side of the Pericope are almost wholly Western, and do not become numerous in any language until after the acceptance by Jerome of the section as Johannine. Jerome seems to have followed here some Greek MSS. not now extant. This evidence is, however, wholly insufficient to justify the inclusion of the narrative in the Fourth Gospel. The ignoring of it by the early Greek MSS., vss., and commentators is thus left unexplained.

Nevertheless, the story of the adulteress seems to be an authentic fragment of early tradition as to the sayings and actions of Jesus. The story is mentioned (although not referred to the Fourth Gospel) in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24), a passage which goes back to the fourth century or perhaps even to the third. It must have been current as a tradition in the third century at any rate. Eusebius probably refers to it when he says of Papias that “he relates another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Eus. H.E. iii. 39). Whether Papias got the story from the extra-canonical “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” or from some other source, is not certain. But that the Pericope de adultera is the story which Papias told has been accepted by many critics; and, accordingly, in Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers the passage [Jn.] 7:53–8:11 is printed as one of the surviving fragments of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis.

This is highly probable, but is not certain. All we can assert with confidence is that the passage is very like the Synoptic stories about Jesus; while its tenderness and gravity commend it as faithfully representing what Jesus said and did when a woman who had sinned unchastely was brought before Him.

No reason for the ready acceptance in the West of the story as evangelical, and of its incorporation in the Latin Gospels as early as the fourth century, can be assigned with certainty. It is perhaps significant that in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24), where we find the narrative for the first time, it is cited as a lesson to bishops who are inclined to be too severe to penitents. Now writers like Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian, who discuss at length the problems of discipline for adultery, never mention this case. Like the rest of the Church, East and West, in the second and third centuries, they held that punishment for fornication ought to be very severe, inasmuch as it seemed essential to mark the divergence of Christian ethics from heathen ethics on this point. But by the time we reach the fourth century, ecclesiastical discipline began to be relaxed and to be less austere; and a story which had been formerly thought dangerous because of its apparent leniency would naturally be appealed to by canonists and divines as indicating the tenderness with which our Lord Himself rebuked sins of the flesh. It was but a short step from quoting the story as edifying to treating it as suitable for reading in Church. It would thus get into lectionaries, and in the Greek Menology it is the lection for St. Pelagia’s day. From its insertion in Evangelistaria, it readily crept into Gospel texts, from which Jerome did not feel it practicable to expel it. Perhaps thus, or somewhat thus, its presence in the textus receptus of the Fourth Gospel is to be explained.

The text of the Pericope which is given here is that adopted by Hort. The various readings are more numerous than in any other part of the N.T., and a large number of explanatory glosses were added to the text in ancient times. Hort’s analysis of these can hardly be improved. We have to do here only with the later uncials, and these are cited by the customary letters (EGH, etc.) as explained by Gregory or Scrivener. We cite the cursive 1071 because of its remarkable agreement with D in this section. (See K. Lake, Texts from Mount Athos, p. 1481.)

πορεύεσθαι εἰς … occurs only at 7:35 in Jn., who prefers πορ. πρός (cf. 14:28, 16:28, 20:17); the constr. is common in the Synoptists.

8:1. τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν is, again, a Synoptic term, not occurring again in Jn. When Jn. introduces a place-name for the first time he is apt to add a word of explanation (4:5, 11:1), but nothing of the kind is here.

Mention of the Mount of Olives would fall in with the story referring to the week before the Passion, when Jesus lodged at Bethany; cf. Mk. 11:11, 19, 13:3.

2. ὄρθρου is Lucan (Lk. 24:1; cf. Acts 5:21); Jn. does not use it, but has πρωΐ instead (18:28, 20:1, 21:4).

The frequent use of δέ in this section to the exclusion of Jn.’s favourite οὖν (see on 1:22) marks the style as non-Johannine.

παρεγένετο. D 1071 have παραγίνεται. The verb occurs in Jn. only once (3:22). ἦλθεν is read by fam. 13.

λαός is found in Jn. only twice (11:50, 18:14); he prefers ὄχλος, which some MSS. give here.

The clause καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς … ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς is omitted by fam. 13; while D om. καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.

For καθίσας, as describing the attitude of Jesus when teaching, see on 6:3 (cf. Mk. 13:3). Jn. generally specifies the nature of Jesus’ teaching in the Temple (cf. 7:28, 8:20), but at 7:14 he writes simply ἐδίδασκεν as here.

3. For ἄγουσιν δέ, fam. 13 gives καὶ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ.

οἱ γραμματεῖς. There is no mention of scribes in Jn. “Scribes and Pharisees” is a frequent Synoptic phrase for the opponents of Jesus, whom Jn. prefers to describe briefly as “the Jews” (see on 1:19).

The woman was not brought before Jesus for formal trial, but in order to get His expression of opinion on a point of the Mosaic law, which might afterwards be used against Him (see v. 6), of which other examples are given by the Snyoptists (cf. Mk. 12:13, 18).

Some minor uncials ins. πρὸς αὐτόν before γυναῖκα, but om. D 1071 and fam. 13.

ἐπὶ μοιχείᾳ is supported by the uncials ΜΣΥΓΛ and fam. 13; ἐν μοιχείᾳ is read by ΕΓΗΚΠ, and is smoothed down in D 1071 to ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίᾳ.

κατειλημμένην. καταλαμβάνειν, “to overtake,” occurs in Jn. 1:5, 12:35. Milligan gives from a fourth- or fifth-century papyrus an exact parallel to the present passage, where it is used of detection in sin, viz.: γυναῖκα καταλημφθεῖσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἠδικημένου μετὰ μοίχου.

στήσαντες αὐτὴν ἐν μέσῳ (ἐν τῳ μεσῷ, fam. 13). Cf. Acts 4:7 for the phrase descriptive of “setting” people in the midst of bystanders for the purpose of examining them.

4. After αὐτῳ, D adds ἐκπειράζοντες αὐτόν, and EGHK 1071 πειράζοντες only. The phrase with ἐκπειράζειν is Lucan; cf. Lk. 10:25.

For κατείληπται (D 1071), ΜΣΛ and fam. 13 have εἰληπται, while ΕΓΗΚΓΠ give κατειλήφθη.

ἐπʼ αὐτοφώρῳ, “in the act.” The phrase does not occur again in the Greek Bible, but is thoroughly classical. Cf. Philo, de spec. leg. iii. 10, μοιχείας δὲ τάς μὲν αὐτοφώρους … ἀπέφηνεν ὁ νόμος. Milligan illustrates from a second-century papyrus τοὺς λημφθέντας ἐπʼ αὐτοφώρῳ κακούργους.

μοιχεύειν does not occur in Jn., but several times in the Synoptists.

5. ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ κτλ. In an ordinary case of adultery (e.g. Lev. 20:10) the penalty was death for both parties, but the manner of execution is not specified, the Talmud prescribing death by strangulation. But in the exceptional and specially heinous case of a betrothed woman’s unchastity, death was to be by stoning (Deut. 22:21). It was an unusual case like this that was put before Jesus.

These severe laws were rarely put in force, but nevertheless the dilemma was neatly framed. If He said that the guilty woman should be stoned, He would have been subject to the Roman law for inciting to murder; and although the Roman authorities were lax on occasion about such acts of violence (as in the case of Stephen, Acts 7:58), there would have been a good pretext for handing Him over to them to deal with. If, however, He inclined to more merciful treatment, as was probably expected of Him, He would have been declared by His critics to be a blasphemous person who did not accept the enactments of the sacred law. Cf. Mk. 12:14 for the dilemma about the tribute money; and Mk. 10:2 for the question about divorce, which, however puzzling, would not involve difficulty with the Roman authorities.

Augustine, however, puts the dilemma in a simpler way: “Si ut iuberet occidi perderet mansuetudinis famam; si autem iuberet dimitti incurreret, tanquam reprehensor legis, calumniam” (Enarr. in Ps. 1. § 8). This may be right, but it does not recall the attempts to entrap Jesus recorded by the Synoptists.

For the first clause D has Μωυσῆς δὲ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ἐκέλευσεν. For λιθάζειν (cf. 10:31), which is read by DMSU 1071 and fam. 13, the rec. has λιθοβολεῖσθαι (the verb used Deut. 22:21) with ΕΓΗΚΠ.

After λέγεις ins. περὶ αὐτῆς ΜΣΥΛ fam. 13 c ff.₂

6. From τοῦτο δέ to κατηγ. αὐτοῦ is om. by DM, the clause appearing in the rec. supported by SUL fam. 13 (in the form κατηγορίαν κατʼ αὐτοῦ). Such laying of traps for Jesus is often mentioned in the Synoptists, e.g. Mk. 8:11, Lk. 11:16.

κατά is seldom used by Jn., but cf. κατηγορίαν κατά followed by a genitive, at 18:29.

κάτω κύψας is read here, but κατακύψας at v. 8, “having stooped down.” κατακύπτειν occurs again in the Greek Bible only at 4 Kings 9:32, in the sense of “peeping out”; see, for παρακύπτειν, on 20:5. For κατακύπτειν, “to stoop,” Milligan cites Aristeas ix. I.

κατέγραφεν. So ΔΕΓΗΜΣ, but ΚΥΓΛ fam. 13 have ἔγραφεν. καταγράφειν does not occur again in N.T., but appears several times in LXX, often meaning “to register,” a sense also found in papyri. It indicates a record or register of something blameworthy in Job 13:26, 1 Esdr. 2:16, Ecclus. 48:10; and this meaning is accepted in some ancient comments, both here and at v. 8.

In a short recension of the story found in an Armenian MS. of the Gospels of A.D. 989, we have: “He Himself, bowing His head, was writing with His finger on the earth, to declare their sins; and they were seeing their several sins on the stones.”¹ And again, after εἰς τὴν γῆν in v. 8, U and some cursives add ἕνος ἐκάστου αὐτῶν τᾶς ἁμαρτίας, as if Jesus was writing down the names and sins of the several accusers. Jerome has the same tradition: “Jesus inclinans digito scribebat in terra, eorum, uidelicet qui accusabant et omnium peccata mortalium, secundum quod scriptum est in propheta Relinquentes autem te in terra scribentur” (adv. Pelagium ii. 17, citing Jer. 17:13).

There is, however, no evidence that Jesus was writing anything by way of record. That He was able to write may be assumed, although in no other place in the N.T. is He said to have written anything. But it is probable that on this occasion He was only scribbling with His finger on the ground, a mechanical action which would suggest only an unwillingness to speak on the subject brought before Him, and preoccupation with His own thoughts.²

If, however, the meaning of register for κατέγραφεν is to be pressed, the emphasis must be placed on εἰς τὴν γῆν: “He began to register the accusation in the dust,” as if He would have no permanent record.

After γῆν the rec. adds, with EGHK, the gloss μὴ προσποιούμενος, “affecting that it was not so,” sc. “as though He heard them not.” This is a classical use of προσποιεῖσθαι with a neg. (cf. Thucyd. iii. 47); the verb occurs again in the N.T. only at Lk. 24:28 (cf. 1 Sam. 21:13, προσεποιήσατο, “feigned himself,” sc. to be mad).

7. ἐπέμενον ἐρωτῶντες, “they went on asking,” as at Acts 12:16 ἐπέμενεν κρούων. ἐπιμένειν does not occur in Jn.

D om. αὐτόν, ἐρωτῶντες then being used absolutely or intransitively, as in the (unusual) instance of Jn. 17:9.

ἀνέκυψεν καί. So D 1071. The rec., with EGHK, has ἀνακύψας (cf. v. 10), while fam. 13 give ἀναβλέψας. In the N.T. ἀνακύπτειν is found again only Lk. 13:11, 21:28, “to lift oneself up”; ἀναβλέπειν is in all the Gospels.

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς. So DSUΓ 1071 fam. 13. M om. αὐτοῖς. EGHK have πρὸς αὐτούς, the rec. reading.

ὁ ἀναμάρτητος κτλ., “Let him that is faultless,” etc. This is the true Synoptic note. ἀναμάρτητος does not indicate only innocence of overt sins of the flesh, but freedom from sinful desire cherished and indulged in. Cf. Mt. 5:28. ἀναμάρτητος does not occur again in N.T., but is found Deut. 29:19, 2 Macc. 8:14, 12:42.

βαλέτω λίθον. So D and fam. 13. Other uncials read τὸν λίθον, to bring out the point that the casting of the first stone was the duty of the witnesses who certified to the crime (Deut. 17:7). But the allusion is the same, even if τόν is omitted. The question of Jesus asks, in fact, who is to be the executioner in this case? (cf. Augustine, Sermo xiii. § 4).

8. καὶ πάλιν κτλ. Jesus again indicates His unwillingness to discuss the matter with the Pharisees. He begins to scribble on the dust for the second time.

τῷ δακτύλῳ is ins. here after κατακύψας by D 28, 74, 1071 ff₂; but om. fam. 13.

As at v. 6, fam. 13 support ἔγραφεν for κατέγραφεν (so D 28, 31).

9. The rec., following EGHKS, after ἀκούσαντες interpolates the explanatory gloss καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι: om. ΔΜΥΓΛ fam. 13, 1071 and the Lat. vss.

For the whole clause οἱ δὲ ἀκ … καθʼ εἷς, D gives only ἕκαστος δὲ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐξήρχετο, while fam. 13 have only ἐξῆλθον εἶς καθʼ εἶς.

After πρεσβυτέρων the rec. adds, with ΣΥΛ fam. 13, ἕως τῶν ἐσχάτων, while D 1071 add ὥστε πάντας ἐξελθεῖν, but both additions are om. in EGHKMΓ, etc. Westcott-Hort suggest that πάντες ἀνεχώρησαν (cf. M 264) originally followed πρεσβυτέρων as an independent clause.

The glosses are unnecessary, although doubtless right in the explanations they offer. The elder men (πρεσβύτεροι, a word not occurring in Jn.; cf. 2 Jn. 1, 3 Jn. 1) were naturally the first to leave, having taken the lead in trying to ensnare Jesus, and having been silenced by His suggestion that they must have felt the power of the temptation which had overcome the woman. If the scene is to be placed in the week following the Triumphal Entry, their acquiescence in the moral authority which Jesus exercised is more readily intelligible. They dared not press the moral issue before the admiring and awestruck people.

καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος. μόνος is om. by fam. 13. Perhaps some disciples were present, and nothing is said of their going away, but the words may mean that Jesus and the woman were left quite alone (as the rec. text indicates), the onlookers feeling the painfulness of the scene. Augustine says: “Remansit magna miseria et magna misericordia” (Enarr. in Ps. 1. § 8). Yet the woman remained ἐν μέσῳ, which suggests the presence of a little group; and, furthermore, the words that Jesus said to her were overheard and were preserved.

10. For ἀνακύψας (cf. v. 7), fam. 13 with Λ has ἀναβλέψας.

After ὁ Ἰης. the rec., with EGHK, adds the gloss καὶ μηδένα θεασάμενος πλὴν τῆς γυναικός, but om. DMS and fam. 13. πλήν is never used by Jn.

D 1071 have εἶπεν τῇ γυναικί, but MSUΓ fam. 13 have εἶπεν, Γυναί. The rec., with cursive support, has εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Ἡ γυνή, the nom. with the article being used for the vocative, a Hebraic use that occurs Mk. 14:36, Mt. 11:26, Lk. 10:21, but not in Jn. (see on 17:21).

ποῦ εἰσίν; The rec. adds ἐκεῖνοι οἱ κατήγοροί σου, and fam. 13 has the gloss, omitting ἐκεῖνοι; but om. ΔΜΓΛ 1071.

οὐδείς σε κατέκρινεν; The compound κατακρίνειν is not Johannine.

In this verse, Jesus is represented as waiting for a little before He spoke. “Has no one proceeded to condemn you?” is His question at last.

11. Οὐδείς, κύριε. “No one, sir.” That is all the woman says from beginning to end. Indeed, she has no excuse for her conduct.

Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω. The verbal similarity of these words to ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω of 8:15 (where see note) may have suggested the position which the interpolated section occupies in the rec. text, viz. at the beginning of c. 8. But κατακρίνειν conveys condemnation in a degree which the simple verb κρίνειν does not connote. Jesus does not say here that He does not pass judgment, even in His own mind, upon the woman’s conduct, but that He does not condemn her judicially or undertake the duty of a judge who had to administer or interpret the Mosaic law (cf. Lk. 12:14). Still less does His reply convey forgiveness; the woman who was forgiven in Lk. 7:48 was a penitent, but there is no hint of penitence in this case.

Probably, the apparent leniency of the words οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω (which could readily be misunderstood) led to their omission in the tenth-century Armenian MS. quoted above on v. 6, and also in a Syriac paraphrase given by Dionysius Barsalibi.¹ The Armenian codex ends, “Go in peace, and present the offering for sins, as in their law is written,” while the Syriac paraphrase has only, “Go thou also now and do this sin no more.”

The warning μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε is found also at 5:14, where (as here) the person addressed has not confessed any sin. The woman had still time to repent.

ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν is om. by fam. 13, but ins. DMSUΓ 1071. The phrase is Lucan (Lk. 1:48, 5:10, 12:52, 22:69) but not Johannine.^{^[1]}

8:12. πάλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.¹ The introductory πάλιν does not fix the context of the discourse which follows, for it is merely resumptive or indicative of the beginning of a new section, as at v. 21 (see on 1:35). Verses 12–20 have points of contact with c. 7 (cf. 7:28 and 8:14), and it is possible (although not certain; see on 7:45) that they should be taken in continuation of the sayings 7:28–38. If vv. 12–20 follow directly on 7:52, as we take them, we must suppose the words of 8:12 to be addressed to the Pharisees, who proceed (8:13) to find fault with them. This, indeed, is implied in αὐτοῖς. Nevertheless, the proclamation “I am the Light of the World” recalls such sayings as 7:37, 38, which were addressed to all and sundry.

ἐλάλησεν λέγων, λέγων introducing the words spoken; see on 3:11, and cf. Mt. 14:27.

ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου. This is one of the great “I am’s” of the Fourth Gospel, for which see Introd., p. cxviii.

Just as the word of Jesus about the Living Water (7:37, 38) may have been suggested by the water ceremonial at the Feast of Tabernacles, so it has been thought that the claim “I am the Light of the World” may also have a reference to the festal ceremonies. On the first night of the feast, there was a ceremony of lighting the four golden candlesticks in the Court of the Women (see v. 20), and there is some evidence for the continuance of the ceremony on other nights. This may have provided the occasion for the words of Jesus about light and darkness. But Philo’s account of the Feast of Tabernacles would furnish an equally plausible explanation. He says that this feast is held at the autumnal equinox, in order that the world (κόσμος) may be full, not only by day but also by night, of the all-beautiful light (τοῦ παγκάλου φωτός), as at that season there is no twilight (de septen. 24). We have in this passage a close parallel to τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου, but no stress ought to be laid upon such verbal coincidences. The passage of Philo shows, however, that the Feast of Tabernacles suggested the idea of light to some minds.²

The Hebrews had thought of God as giving them light, and as being their light. “The Lord is my Light” was the confession of a Psalmist (Ps. 27:1); “the Lord shall be thy everlasting Light” was the promise of a prophet (Isa. 60:19). The later Rabbis applied the thought to the Messiah: “Light is the Name of Messiah,” they said.¹ The vision of Deutero-Isaiah was larger, for he proclaimed that the Servant of Yahweh would be a Light to the Gentiles (Isa. 42:6, 49:6; cf. Lk. 2:32). But the saying ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου goes far beyond this, for the κόσμος (see on 1:9) includes all created life.² There is no Hebraic parallel to be found for such a thought,³ the expression of which here is thoroughly Johannine in form. See Introd., p. cxviii.

In the Prologue, the Word of God is spoken of as the Light. John the Baptist was not the Light, but he came to bear witness of the Light (1:8), which was τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, lighting every man (1:9). In the Person of Jesus, the Light came into the world (3:19), as Jesus Himself said, ἐγὼ φῶς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐλήλυθα (12:46). And so here (8:12) and at 9:5, the majestic phrase ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου is put into the mouth of Jesus.

In the Sermon on the Mount, according to Mt. 5:14, Jesus said to His hearers ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου. This is apparently to say more than Paul said to his converts when he called them φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ (Phil. 2:15); and it is not certain that Mt.’s Greek rendering of our Lord’s words is accurate here.⁴ But if it is precise, the application of the words τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου to faithful citizens of the kingdom of heaven must be wholly different from its application when Christ used it of Himself and said, “I am the Light of the World.” This is to make an exclusive claim, such as could be made by no other speaker, although others might claim to share in the assurance of Christ that His people are, as contrasted with non-Christians, the world’s light. Cf. 7:38 and the note thereupon.

ὁ ἀκολουθῶν μοι οὐ μὴ περιπατήσῃ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ. To “follow” Jesus is to walk in the light. It is the first act of discipleship (1:37), and the last precept in the Gospel enjoins it as the essential thing (21:22). See 12:26. Jesus Himself is “the Way” (14:6).

The Hebrew verb הָלַךְ “to walk” is often used in the O.T. figuratively of conduct in general (e.g. 2 Kings 20:3), and is sometimes, when used in this sense, rendered in the LXX by περιπάτειν (e.g. Prov. 8:20, Eccles. 11:9). This use of περιπάτειν is found only once in the Synoptists (Mk. 7:5; cf. Acts 21:21), but occurs over 30 times in Paul, and frequently in Jn. (see 12:35, 1 Jn. 1:6, 7, 2:6, 11; cf. 2 Jn.6, 3 Jn. 3, 4). It is, in fact, a Hebraism.

The contrast between the Two Ways, of Darkness and of Light, is not peculiar to Jn. (cf. Barnabas, § 18), but it is a favourite topic in his Gospel (see, for “walking” in light or in darkness, 11:9, 12:35, 1 Jn. 1:6, 7). Job (29:3) speaks of the days when God watched over him: “and by His light I walked through darkness” (cf. Mic. 7:8). This is part of the thought in “he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life”; but it is less explicit. The Light of God is the Light of Life (τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς).

The Odes of Solomon several times express the idea of the believer walking in the Light of Christ, e.g. “He set over [His way] the footprints of His light, and I walked therein” (7:17; cf. 29:7, 32:1).

The phrase τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς may mean the Light which imparts life or illuminates life; or it may mean the Light which issues from Life. We have seen that in 6:35 the primary meaning of “I am the Bread of Life” is understood by the evangelist to be “the Bread which gives life” (6:33), but the deeper meaning of “the Living Bread” is not excluded (6:51). So here we must allow for a double suggestiveness in the phrase τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς. When we apply such concepts as ζωή, φῶς, to God or to Christ, we cannot treat them as if we knew them to be fundamentally distinct. They are qualities or aspects of Absolute Being, and it is beyond our powers to define them adequately or explain their mutual relation. In the Fourth Gospel, Christ is the Light: He is also the Life (11:25, 14:6). Perhaps Light is Life, in its essence; perhaps Life, truly understood, is Light. See on 1:4, and Introd., p. cxl.

13. εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ οἱ φαρισαῖοι. For the “Pharisees,” see on 7:32, and cf. 1:24. Their objection was that the testimony of Jesus to His own claims was not admissible, according to the rules of evidence which governed the controversies of the Rabbis (see on 5:31). Self-witness was always suspect, and might be disregarded as being untrue.

14. The answer of Jesus κἂν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἀληθής ἐστιν ἥ μαρτυρία μου is in formal contradiction with His former admission ἐὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἡ μαρτυρία μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής (5:31, where see note); but there is no real contradiction, for here he takes higher ground, so to speak, than on that occasion, and claims that the Divine origin and dignity of which He is conscious justify Him in bearing witness to Himself. This is the very badge of Deity (see v. 18), although it is true that no individual man could claim it (as He had said, 5:31). He alone could be called ὁ ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός (Rev. 3:14).

ὅτι οἶδα πόθεν ἦλθον, “because I know (with complete knowledge) whence I came,” sc. at the Incarnation (cf. 1:1, 13:3, 16:28).

καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγω, “and whither I go”; see on 7:33 for ὑπάγειν used of “going to the Father.”

The words which follow, ὑμεῖς … ὑπάγω, do not appear to have been present in the texts known to Origen, but the omission is readily explicable by homoioteleuton, ὑπάγω … ὑπάγω.

ὑμεῖς δὲ (א om. δέ) οὐκ οἴδατε πόθεν ἔρχομαι. That is, they did not know of His heavenly origin, although (like the Jewish interlocutors of 7:28) they may have known that He was of the family at Nazareth.

15. The Pharisees had complained that the self-witness of Jesus was unsupported and therefore untrustworthy (v. 13). In v. 14 Jesus has answered that their objection, however sound if applied to a mere man, fails in His case: they do not know His origin or His home. He now adds that their judgment is superficial because of this ignorance of His true being.

ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα κρίνετε, “you judge superficially”; cf. for κατὰ τὴν σάρκα, 1 Cor. 1:26, 2 Cor. 5:16. The Pharisees had done just what He had previously warned them not to do, when He said μὴ κρίνετε κατʼ ὄψιν (7:24).

ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα. The ultimate purpose of His coming into the world was to save it, not to judge it (3:17); and if an individual man would not obey His word, Jesus did not judge him then: the spoken word would judge him at the Last Day (12:48). At that Great Assize, the Son of Man will be the Judge (see on 3:17, 5:22, and Introd., p. clviii). But the saying ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα refers to the action of Jesus during His public mission on earth, and not to the future judgment of the world. There is a sense in which He did judge, or discriminate between one man and another, during His earthly ministry (see vv. 16, 26); but ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα expresses not only that this was not the purpose of His mission (see 3:17), but that it was not His habit. It was a charge made against Him that He did not discriminate sufficiently, that He consorted with publicans and sinners (Mk. 2:16, Lk. 15:2), that He did not repel the sinful woman at the Pharisee’s house (Lk. 7:39). Even in the case of the adulteress whose guilt was proved, when judgment must have been condemnation, He said οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω [8:11]. His example was consonant to His own precept μὴ κρίνετε (Mt. 7:1).

This saying of Christ ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα is found only in Jn., but its genuineness becomes the more apparent the more closely it is examined. It is a paradox, for it is seemingly contradicted in the next verse, but it is one of those terse, pregnant paradoxes of which the Synoptists have preserved many examples.¹

ἐὰν κρίνω δέ κτλ., “but if I judge, my judgment is sound,” i.e. not merely true, but soundly based and complete. Cf. ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ δικαία ἐστίν (5:30, where see note).

The judgment of Christ is not that of a single individual, for μόνος οὐκ εἰμί, ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πέμψας με. Cf. vv. 26, 29, for the same thought, and again 16:32 οὐκ εἰμὶ μόνος, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν. The consciousness of this perpetual association with the Father is explicitly claimed by the Christ of Jn.; but it is implied, too, in the bitterness of the cry “Why hast Thou forsaken me,” which is recorded only by Mk. and Mt. Herein was the anguish of the Cross, as they picture it.

The general principle to which the Pharisees appealed, sc. that judgment, like testimony, must not depend on one individual, is well illustrated in a Jewish saying (Pirke Aboth, iv. 12, quoted by Westcott), “Judge not alone, for none may judge alone save One.”

For the conception of Jesus as “sent” by the Father, see on 3:17, 4:34. After ὁ πέμψας με א^cB L T Θ W add πατήρ, but πατήρ is omitted by א*D, and it probably comes from v. 18.

17. γέγραπται. Jn. generally has γεγραμμένον ἐστίν where the Synoptists would have γέγραπται (see on 2:17). But γεγραμμένον ἐστίν here is attested by א only; all other authorities give γέγραπται, which must therefore be regarded as the true reading. Abbott (Diat. 2588a) suggests that γέγραπται ὅτι is used here to introduce a quotation not given exactly.

ἐν τῷ νόμῳ κτλ. This is a free reference to the maxim of evidence in Deut. 19:15 (cf. Num. 35:30, Deut. 17:6; and see 2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5:19). For another reference by Jesus to this legal maxim, cf. Mt. 18:16.

The phrase “your law” challenges scrutiny. Jesus accepted the “law,” i.e. the Old Testament scriptures, very explicitly (see Introd., pp. cxlvii, clv); and it is unlike the way in which He was accustomed to speak of it, that he should say “your law,” thus dissociating Himself, as it were, from any recognition of its authority. He is represented in 10:34 as again using this expression, and in 15:25 as speaking to His disciples of Scripture as “their law,” i.e. the law of the Jews. It is true that in 8:17 and 10:34 the phrase appears in controversy with the Jews, and it might be thought that it supplied an argumentum ad hominem. Those who disputed with Jesus were shown to be in the wrong, on their own principles. But in the equally argumentative passage 7:19, 23, He speaks of “the law” and “the law of Moses”; and no such explanation can be given of the phrase “their law” in 15:25, which would definitely dissociate Him from the people of Israel, by suggesting that their Scriptures were not His Scriptures. In every place where ὁ νόμος is mentioned by Him in the Synoptists, whether it refers to the law which He came “not to destroy, but to fulfil,” or in a wider sense to the O.T. books, He always says “the Law” (cf. Mt. 5:17, 18, 7:12, 11:13, 12:5, 22:40, 23:23, Lk. 2:22, 24, 27, 39, 10:26, 16:16; the word νόμος does not occur in Mk.).

It is difficult to think that in these Johannine texts (8:17, 10:34, 15:25) the words of Jesus have been exactly reproduced.¹

18. The use of ἐγώ εἰμι in solemn affirmation has been discussed in Introd., p. cxviii; and the present passage provides an instructive example of this usage.

ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ. This is the style of Deity. As the Pharisees had urged, a man’s witness about himself is not trustworthy (v. 13); but Jesus replies to this by expressing Himself in terms which suggest His Divinity. This, however, is not said explicitly; and the point of His answer which the Pharisees understand is that He says that there is a second Witness, sc. His Father who sent Him (cf. 5:32). There is a prophetic passage, Isa. 43:10, which has close verbal relations with this and v. 28: γένεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες, καὶ ἐγὼ μάρτυς, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, καὶ ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ἐξελεξάμην, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε, καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι. The thought in Isa. 43:10, however, is of witness being borne to Yahweh (1) by the people, (2) by His Servant, and, according to the LXX interpolation, (3) by Himself.

19. ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ σου; This is the rejoinder of the Jewish objectors. They understand that by ὁ πατήρ (v. 16) Jesus means God the Father, and they do not ask “Who is He?” But they say “Where is He?” This second Witness, of whom Jesus had spoken, is not visible, and therefore (according to the Rabbinical doctrine of evidence) no appeal can be made to Him.

The answer of Jesus is, in effect, that their ignorance is invincible. God cannot, of course, be perceived by the senses. He is appealing to the witness of One whom no man can see.

οὔτε ἐμὲ οἴδατε οὔτε τὸν πατέρα μου. There is no inconsistency with 7:28 κἀμὲ οἴδατε, for there Jesus speaks only of the Jews’ knowledge of Him as man, and of the family at Nazareth; here He speaks of their ignorance of His true Personality, which is Divine (cf. v. 14). Being ignorant of this, and therefore of His relation to the Father, they betray ignorance also of the Father Himself. Cf. οὐκ ἐγνώκατε αὐτόν (v. 55), and οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὸν πατέρα οὐδὲ ἐμέ (16:3). See Mt. 11:27, Lk. 10:22.

εἰ ἐμὲ ᾔδειτε, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἄν ᾔδειτε. This principle is repeated 14:7, εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἄν ᾔδειτε (cf. 12:45 and 14:9), and it is deep rooted in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus came to reveal the Father, not only by His words but by His life.

Note that εἰ ἐμὲ ᾔδειτε of this verse is replaced by εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με at 14:7, showing what precarious ground we are on when an attempt is made to distinguish οἶδα from γιγνώσκω (see on 1:26).

20. ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα. Emphatic, and therefore placed at the beginning of the sentence.

ἐλάλησεν ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ. The γαζοφυλάκιον was the name for the treasure-chamber of the Temple (cf. Mk. 12:41, Lk. 21:1, and 2 Macc. 3:6, 4:42). It abutted on the Court of the Women, and against its walls were placed chests, trumpet-like in form, as receptacles for the offerings of the worshippers. It is not probable that Jesus was teaching within a treasure-chamber, and so it seems that ἐν should be taken as denoting proximity only, “near the treasury” (cf. ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom. 8:34). Hence ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ διδάσκων ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ means “teaching in the Temple precincts (see on 2:14) near the treasury chamber,” i.e. in the colonnade between it and the open court (cf. Mk 12:41). The hall where the Sanhedrim met was hard by, and probably within earshot of the place where Jesus was teaching.

καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπίασεν αὐτόν κτλ., “and yet” (καί being used for καίτοι, as often in Jn.; see on 1:10) “no man took Him, because His hour was not yet come.” This is almost verbally repeated from 7:30, where see note. For οὔπω ἐληλύθει ἡ ὤρα αὐτοῦ, see also on 2:4.

Jesus Develops His Lofty Claims: Some of the Jews Who Hear Believe (vv. 21–30)

21. The occasion of the discourse which follows is not mentioned. It may be a continuation of what precedes (see on v. 26), and if so οὖν may be causative, having reference to the fact that Jesus had not been arrested (v. 20; cf. 7:33). But perhaps οὖν is used as a mere conjunction (see on 1:22), and πάλιν only marks (as in v. 12) the beginning of a new discourse. It is not possible to assign every discourse in Jn. to its original occasion; and one of the many rearrangements of the Gospel (that of F. W. Lewis) would place 8:21–59 after 7:52. Ver. 21 reproduces, though not verbally, the warning of 7:33, 34, and its last clause is addressed in identical terms to the disciples at 13:33 (where see note). But πάλιν is not to be taken as an allusion to the repetition of 7:34; as has been said, it may only mark the opening of a new discourse or paragraph (v. 12, 10:7; and see on 1:35).

εἶπεν οὖν πάλιν αὐτοῖς. NΓ Δ Θ add ὁ Ἰησοῦς (from 7:33), but om. א B D L T W.

ἐγὼ ὑπάγω. For this verb and its usage in Jn., see on 7:33. “I go away,” sc. to God.

καὶ ζητήσετέ με. As in 7:34, this is the search of despair; they will seek Jesus as their Messiah, when it is too late. καὶ οὐκ εὑρήσετέ με is added by a few manuscripts from 7:34, where it is part of the text; but it is implied in any case.

καὶ ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ὑμῶν ἀποθανεῖσθε, “and ye shall die in your sin,” an O.T. phrase (cf. Ezek. 3:18, 18:18, and especially Prov. 24:9 ἀποθνήσκει δὲ ἄφρων ἐν ἁμαρτίαις, of which LXX rendering the phrase in the text may be a reminiscence). It is repeated v. 24, where see note. Those who too late seek Jesus as the Messiah, shall die in a state of sin, unredeemed by Him.

ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν, “whither I go ye cannot come”: this is repeated verbally at 13:33, where it is addressed to the disciples. Cf. 7:34, where the same thing (in substance) was said to the Jews, and see the note there.

22. ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, sc. the Jewish objectors.

μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτόν κτλ., “Is He going to kill Himself, that He says, ‘Whither I am going you cannot come’?” This is a quite different rejoinder from that of 7:35, made in reply to the same warning, the occasion and the interlocutors both being different. It has often been suggested that the rejoinder carries a scornful allusion to the belief that the depths of hell were reserved for suicides (cf. Josephus, B.J. III. viii. 5, ᾅδης σκοτιώτερος); but this is not certain. In any case, the Jews speak ironically: “If we cannot follow you, it must be because you will be no longer alive.” The saying of mystery, “Whither I go you cannot come,” which was uttered more than once (7:34, 13:33), naturally provoked different comments from different persons.

23. καὶ ἔλεγεν. The rec. has εἶπεν, but א B D L N T W Θ have the imperfect ἔλεγεν, which suggests that what follows was a habitual saying of Jesus. He leaves their taunt unanswered, but adds that His origin and natural home were different from the origin and home of “the Jews.” It was not surprising that they did not understand Him when He said that He was moving to a region where they could not follow. Cf. Mt. 6:21.

ὑμεῖς ἐκ τῶν κάτω ἐστέ, “You are from beneath,” i.e. “of the earth.” Cf. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κάτω (Acts 2:19). κάτω does not occur again in Jn. (but cf. 8:8).

ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί. The contrast is the same as that of 3:31. The implied argument, sc. that the Jews’ failure of understanding has its root in moral causes, has met us before (5:38f., 7:17f.), and is repeated 8:42.

ὑμεῖς ἐκ τούτου τοῦ κόσμου ἐστέ. B T give the emphatic τούτου τοῦ κόσμου here, but the more usual τοῦ κόσμου τούτου in the second clause of the verse (so W in both clauses). א D L Γ Δ give τοῦ κόσμου τούτου in both clauses, and ὁ κόσμος οὗτος is the order in every other N.T. passage where the expression occurs. So, too, we always find ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος (except Mt. 12:32).

The idea of imperfection which the word κόσμος, the totality of created being, suggests in Jn. has been noted on 1:9. This idea is specially brought out in the phrase ὁ κόσμος οὗτος. When thus limited, the word does not embrace any plane of creation other than that of earth (11:9), and “this world” is contrasted with the spiritual or heavenly world, as being in a special degree affected by evil powers (16:11) and as awaiting the Judgment (9:39, 12:31). The kingdom of Jesus is not of “this world” (18:36), from which He passed after His Passion (13:1). It is the place of our earthly discipline (1 Jn. 4:17), in which he who hates his life shall keep it to life eternal (12:25). The phrase occurs with a like hint of evil, 1 Cor. 3:19, 5:10, 7:31.¹

So here it is said of the Jews ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐστέ. Cf. for the same construction εἶναι ἐκ, 1 Jn. 4:5 αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἰσί.

ἐγὼ (emphatic) οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. Cf. 17:14, 16. It is the perpetual theme of the Fourth Gospel that He who was not “of the world” came “into the world” for its rescue.

ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, the singular τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ being changed to the plural. To this no significance is to be attached, as when phrases are repeated in Jn., there are generally slight verbal alterations (see on 3:16).

ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀποθανεῖσθε κτλ. Jesus repeats with an awful solemnity that if His hearers do not accept Him for what He is, they will die in their sins. ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι may mean “that I am from above,” as He had just asserted of Himself, ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί. But if this be the construction, it is very elliptical. It is more probable that we should take ἐγώ εἰμι absolutely, “I am He,” i.e. “I am the Divine Deliverer,” as at vv. 28, 58, and 13:19. For this use of ἐγώ εἰμι as the equivalent of the Hebrew אֲנִי־הוּא, see Introd., p. cxx, where the expression is more fully discussed. We may here particularly compare Isa. 43:10 ἳνα πιστεύσητε … ὃτι ἐγώ εἰμι (see on v. 18). Jesus had uttered His message; henceforth they had no excuse for their sin (15:22).

25. ἔλεγον οὖν αὐτῷ Σὺ τίς εἶ; The Jews are puzzled by the last words of Jesus. They sounded like the Divine proclamations in the prophetical books. Who is this, that says I AM? And they ask Him, “Who art Thou?” (cf. 1:19). But He gives no direct or simple answer (cf. 19:9). Cf. 10:24 for a similar question, and a similar indirectness of reply.

τὴν ἀρχὴν ὃ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν, “Primarily (in essence), what I am telling you,” i.e. “I am what my words reveal.” We have already noted (see on 3:11; and cf. 10:6, 12:49, 14:10, 16:18) that λαλεῖν cannot always be sharply distinguished from λέγειν; and the constr. ὃ τι λαλῶ is similar to ὁ λόγος ὃν ἐλάλησα of 12:48, or ταῦτα λαλῶ of v. 28.

τὴν ἀρχήν is never used in Jn. for “from the beginning,” which is expressed by ἐξ ἀρχῆς (16:4), or more frequently by ἀρʼ ἀρχῆς (15:27, 1 Jn. 1:1 and passim). In the LXX τὴν ἀρχήν often stands for “at the beginning,” “at the first”—e.g. Gen. 43:20, Dan. 9:21 (LXX), and Dan. 8:1 (Theod.)—which is a sound classical construction. (Cf. Herod. viii. 132 ἐόντες ἀρχὴν ἑπτά, “being originally seven in number.”) But in the present passage the rendering “I have spoken at the beginning” is inadmissible, inasmuch as the verb is in the present (λαλῶ) and not in the aorist (ἐλάλησα). These considerations seem to rule out the R.V. “Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning.”

The R.V. margin treats the sentence as a question, and for the relative ὃ τι substitutes ὃτι. Thus τὴν ἀρχὴν ὃτι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; is translated “How is it that I even speak to you at all?” This rendering has the support of Chrysostom, and there is no doubt that τὴν ἀρχήν may stand for ὃλως, omnino, especially in negative sentences. An apposite parallel to such a use is found in Clem. Hom. vi. II, εἰ μὴ παρακολουθεῖς οἷς λέγω, τί καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν διαλέγομαι; (a sentence in which some have found an echo of v. 25). The answer of Jesus, according to this view, is a severe rebuke, which has a note of impatience, comparable to Mk. 9:19, “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you!” But it is difficult to connect a rebuke of this kind with the words which immediately follow in v. 26, πολλὰ ἔχω περὶ ὑμῶν λαλεῖν.

The Latin and Syriac vss. take the sentence as affirmative, not as interrogative; and herein they are probably right. But neither can be followed in detail. Syr. sin. gives “The chief is that I should speak myself with you, seeing that I have much that I should speak concerning you and judge”; but this provides no answer to the question “Who art thou?” Some O.L. texts give “initium quod et loquor uobis,” i.e. “I am the Beginning (cf. Rev. 21:6), that which I am saying to you”; but τὴν ἀρχήν could not be attracted to ὃ τι in this way. The Vulgate has “principium quia et loquor uobis,” which is still farther from the Greek.

We come back to the rendering, “Primarily, I am what I am telling you,” as the least open to objection of the many renderings that have been offered of this difficult passage. τὴν ἀρχήν means fundamentally or originally, or, in colloquial English, “at bottom.” In reply to the question “Who art thou?” Jesus declares to the Jews that He is essentially what His words reveal, in particular such words as ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί (v. 23), and (above all) ἐγώ εἰμι (v. 24).

26. πολλὰ ἓχω περὶ ὑμῶν λαλεῖν καὶ κρίνειν. This seems to take up the teaching of v. 16 above. Jesus does not dwell upon His answer to the question “Who art thou?” He goes on with His discourse, as there was much still to say. With πολλὰ ἔχω λαλεῖν cf. πολλὰ ἔχω λέγειν of 16:12, a comparison which confirms the conclusion (reached in the note on 3:11) that λαλεῖν and λέγειν are not sharply distinguished by Jn., and that they are sometimes interchangeable.

καὶ κρίνειν. His discourse was of judgment. He had already said twice to the Jews that they would die in their sins (vv. 21, 24), a κρίσις to which the words of v. 16 lead up.

ἀλλʼ ὁ πέμψας με ἀληθής ἐστιν κτλ. This is again resumptive of v. 16, where Jesus had said that His judgment was true, because it was not His own, but reflected the judgment of the Father who had sent Him. The adversative ἀλλά points back to the objection which He continually rebuts, sc. that He has no authority behind Him. “Whatever objection you raise to my claim to judge, you must remember that He who sent me is true.” See on v. 16 above; and cf. 3:33, 7:28.

κἀγὼ ἃ ἤκουσα παρʼ αὐτοῦ, ταῦτα λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Cf. 15:15 πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν, and see vv. 38, 40. Here the sayings “heard from the Father” were sayings of judgment, as at 5:30, καθὼς ἀκούω κρίνω. And, unlike those of 15:15, they were spoken “to the world” (cf. 18:20).

To speak εἰς τὸν κόσμον is a constr. that is not found again in Jn.; but cf. 1 Cor. 14:9 εἰς ἀέρα λαλοῦντες, Mk. 13:10 εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.

ταῦτα λαλῶ. So א B D L N T W Δ Θ, but minor uncials substitute λέγω for λαλῶ.

27. οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῖς ἔλεγεν. This is one of the evangelist’s comments on his narrative (see Introd., p. xxxiv), and it seems to confirm what has been said on v. 25 about the Jews’ misunderstanding of the words of mystery which Jesus had uttered.

28. εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, “Jesus therefore said,” sc. because of their misunderstanding. א D N Γ Δ Θ add αὐτοῖς, but om. B L T W; א D further add πάλιν.

ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, “When you shall have lifted up,” sc. on the Cross, “the Son of Man.” See on 3:14 for ὑψοῦν in Jn., and cf. 12:32. In the present passage ὑψοῦν must relate to the lifting up on the Cross, and not to the “lifting up” of the Ascension, for the latter was not in any sense the act of the Jews, as the Crucifixion was (cf. Acts 3:14).

τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, “then ye shall know that I am (the Son of Man),” the predicate of ἐγώ εἰμι being understood from the preceding clause of the sentence. Otherwise, we must take ἐγώ εἰμι as used absolutely, as in v. 24 (cf. 8:58, 13:19), the phrase being then identical with the self-designation of Yahweh in the prophets, אֲנִי־הוּא “I (am) He” (see Introd., p. cxx). On either interpretation, the style of the sentence is that of Divine proclamations: cf. Ezek. 11:10 ἐπιγνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ κύριος.

Too late, the pressure of facts, the fall of Jerusalem and the like, would convince them of the truth of His words: “cognoscetis ex re, quod nunc ex uerbo non creditis” (Bengel). This, rather than the conviction of sin wrought by the Holy Spirit (16:8f.), seems to be the force of τότε γνώσεσθε.

ὅτι governs not only ἐγώ εἰμι, but also the next clause ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν κτλ. This had been said before, 5:30 (cf. 12:49). For its significance, see note on 5:19. Ignatius (Magn. 7) has ὁ κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν, a reminiscence of these Johannine phrases.

ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατήρ. Cf. v. 26, and see 7:16. 17 After πατήρ, BΓ Δ add μου, but om. א D L N T Θ. W om. ὁ πατήρ.

ταῦτα λαλῶ: ταῦτα referring to the specific teachings of this section. Cf. 12:36 ταῦτα ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, and v. 30 ταῦτα λαλοῦντος. With the sentence καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν … λαλῶ, cf. the parallels 12:50 and 14:31.

29. καὶ ὁ πέμψας με (see on 3:17 for the mission of the Son) μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν κτλ. This has already been said at v. 16, ὅτι μόνος οὐκ εἰμί, ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πέμψας με, and is repeated 16:32 in a different context. Much more is implied here than in the saying of Peter that “God was with Him” (Acts 10:38), for all through Jn. the ineffable union of the Son with the Father is behind the narrative (cf. 10:38).

οὐκ ἀφῆκέν με μόνον. Γ Δ N add ὁ πατήρ unnecessarily; om. B D L T WΘ. The union of the preincarnate Son with the Father (17:5) was continued after the Incarnation.

ὅτι is causal, “because I do the things pleasing to Him.” Thus at 15:10 Jesus tells His disciples that by keeping His commandments they will abide in His love, even as He by keeping His Father’s commandments abides in the Father’s love. The adj. ἀρεστός occurs again in Jn. only at 1 Jn. 3:22, and there, as here, of doing the things that are pleasing to God, i.e. of keeping His commandments. See, for a similar use of ἀρεστός, Ex. 15:26, Wisd. 9:18, Isa. 38:3.

For the thought that the continual aim of Jesus was to do the will of the Father, cf. 4:34, 5:30, 6:38. Here He claims always (πάντοτε) to do that which is pleasing to the Father, a claim which implies a consciousness of sinlessness (cf. v. 46 below).

The language of Ignatius (Magn. 8), ὃς κατὰ πάντα εὐηρέστησεν τῷ πέμψαντι αὐτόν, seems to rest on this verse.

30. ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, “As He was saying these things.” The gen. absolute is infrequent in Jn., partly because of his fondness for parataxis; he never uses it in his report of the words of Jesus.

πολλοι ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν. For this favourite phrase of Jn., see on 4:39, where (as here) belief in Christ is due to what He said rather than to the “signs” which He wrought. Those who “believed in Him” were fewer in number than those who “believed Him”—a larger body who are addressed in the next verse, and of whom some, as the sequel shows, soon began to cavil at His teaching.

Jesus Tells the Jews Who are Inclined to Believe Him, that Truth Would Emancipate Them from the Slavery of Sin (vv. 31–34)

31. ἔλεγεν οὖν … πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους, “So He began to say to the Jews that believed Him,” i.e. those who had been impressed by His recent utterances (but cf. vv. 33 and 40). πιστεύειν followed by a dative does not represent so high a degree of faith as πιστεύειν εἴς τινα; but it indicates a stage on the way to discipleship. You must believe what a man says before you can believe in him. For the constr. πιστεύειν εἴς τινα, see on 1:12; and cf. the note at 6:30 on πιστεύειν τινί. For the constr. ἔλεγεν πρός τινα, see on 2:3.

ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ κτλ. Cf. 2 Jn. 9, where we have μὴ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει. In v. 37 and at 5:38 a different metaphor is employed, sc. that of the λόγος of God abiding in the believer. But (see on 5:38) the two expressions “abiding in His word” and “His word abiding in us” come to the same thing. See also on 6:56, 15:7.

ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε. This is the highest rank among Christians, sc. those who have reached the stage of discipleship. See on 15:8, where this is repeated.

32. καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν. For the conception of ἀλήθεια in Jn., see on 1:14; and cf. vv. 40, 44, 45.

καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς. The words express a great principle, which is applicable in many directions, and which has been enunciated by Jewish and heathen teachers as well as by Christian. It was a Stoic paradox ὅτι μόνος ὁ σοφὸς ἐλεύθερος καὶ πᾶς ἄφρων δοῦλος (Cicero, Parad. 5). This was repeated in another form by Seneca, “unum studium uere liberale est quod liberum facit, hoc est sapientiae” (Ep. lxxxviii. 2). Philo, in the same spirit, wrote a book to prove that the σπουδαῖος is free (quod omnis probus liber sit). In another book (de confus. ling. 20) he asks τίς οὖν ἐλευθερία βεβαιοτάτη; to which he gives the answer ἡ τοῦ μόνου θεραπεία σοφοῦ. But there is no trace of generalisations of this kind either in O.T. or N.T.

The freedom which truth brings (in the view of Jn.) is emancipation from the slavery of sin. This appears from v. 34, where see note. In v. 36 the Son is said to be the Agent of this emancipation (ἐὰν ὁ υἱὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ) and the juxtaposition of vv. 32, 36 is instructive, when the great utterance ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια (14:6) is recalled. The purpose of the self-consecration of Jesus is declared (17:19) to be that His disciples may be ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ.

There is, perhaps, a hint of the emancipating influence of truth at 1:17: “The law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ.” See note in loc.

33. ἀπεκρίθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν. So א B D L W Θ 33 (see for the constr. on 2:3); but NΓ Δ have ἀπεκρ. αὐτῷ. Those who made the answer which follows were not the Jews who “believed Him” (v. 31), but the Jewish objectors, with whom throughout the rest of this chapter Jesus is engaged in controversy. He could not have charged “the Jews who believed Him” with seeking His life (vv. 37, 39).

Σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐσμεν (cf. Ps. 105:6, Isa. 41:8). This was the proudest boast of the Jews, that they were the heirs of the covenant with Abraham, because of their direct descent from him. Cf. Gen. 22:17, Lk. 1:55.

καὶ οὐδενὶ δεδολεύκαμεν πώποτε. This was, of course, not true. The captivity in Babylon was only one instance of the contrary; and they were under the yoke of Rome even while they were speaking. But they would not admit, even to themselves, that they were not a free people. They were not bondslaves (δεδουλεύκαμεν), indeed, but Jesus had not used the word δοῦλος yet. Their petulant retort really marked the uneasy consciousness that they were not as free as they would like to be: “How sayest thou, Ye shall become free men?”

34. ἀπεκρ. αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς. B omits the art. before Ἰησοῦς here (see on 1:29, 50). αὐτοῖς refers to the hostile Jews who are in view throughout the rest of the chapter.

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, calling attention to a solemn pronouncement summing up what He has just said. Cf. vv. 51, 58; and see on 1:51.

πᾶς … δοῦλός ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας. D b and Syr. sin., with Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii. 5), omit τῆς ἀμαρτίας. The omission would not, however, alter the sense, which must in any case be that the sinner is the slave of sin (or of the devil).

πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν means (as it does 1 Jn. 3:4, 8) “every one who lives in the practice of sin,” just as ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (3:21) means “he who lives in the practice of truth.” It is habitual, rather than occasional, sin that is here in view when it is said that a man mastered by it is a slave.

The Hebrews regarded sin in the light of violation of God’s law, rather than as a state of slavery. This latter doctrine is Greek rather than Hebrew; it is not often expressed by Greek writers so clearly as by Xenophon: ὅστις οὖν ἄρχεται ὑπὸ τῶν διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἡδονῶν, καὶ διὰ ταύτας μὴ δύναται πράττειν τὰ βέλτιστα, νομίζεις τοῦτον ἐλεύθερον εἶναι; Ἥκιστα, ἔφη (Memorab. iv. 5. 3). Cf. Œconom. i. § 22. Paul has the same idea when he speaks of sinners as δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. 6:17, 20), but it does not appear elsewhere in his epistles. He dwells often on the freedom of the Christian from the yoke of the Jewish law (Gal. 5:1, 13), but that is a different conception. In 2 Pet. 2:19 we have the phrase δοῦλοι τῆς φθορᾶς, which is parallel to δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας. But it is remarkable that the idea of sin as a master which makes slaves of men is found in the N.T. only here, and at Rom. 6:17, 20, 2 Pet. 2:19. It is not quite apposite to cite Jas. 1:25, 2:12, 2 Cor. 3:17, which express the principle that the Christian law is a law of liberty.

Jesus Tells the Jews that They are Only Slaves Without Tenure in the Household of God: They are Not True Sons of Abraham, for They Try to Kill Him: Their Father is the Devil. It is Just Because They Have Not God for Their Father that They Will Not Believe Jesus, Who Offers Them Eternal Life (vv. 35–51)

35. In the report of this discourse, there is at this point a sudden change of metaphor. In v. 34 the δοῦλος is the slave of sin (or of the devil); but in v. 35 a contrast is drawn between the positions of the δοῦλος and the υἱός in a household presided over by its rightful master. A slave may be cast out at any moment; he has no covenant with his master. But if the heir emancipates him from his state of serfdom, sc. to his lawful master, he becomes a free man and obtains a footing in the house comparable to that of a son. This seems to be the trend of the argument, but it involves a transition from a particular conception of the δοῦλος to a quite different conception.

ὁ δὲ δοῦλος οὐ μένει ἐν τῇ οἰκία εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The slave has no tenure. The story of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen. 21:10) suggests itself, but it is not clear that Jn. intends any allusion to it, or to Paul’s use of it (Gal. 4:30). If a slave offends his master, he is liable to expulsion from the household. This seems to be meant as a warning to the Jews, who are really slaves because of their sins, that they have no fixed tenure in the household of God (cf. 4:53 for οἰκία as equivalent to “a household”).

ὁ υἱὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. A similar contrast between the slave and the son appears Heb. 3:5, where (quoting Num. 12:7) Moses is described as a faithful servant (θεράπων) in the house (οἶκος) of God, but Christ as the Son of that house. For the οἰκία of the Father, cf. 14:2; and for the permanence of a son’s tenure in his father’s house, cf. Lk. 15:31: τέκνον, σὺ πάντοτε μετʼ ἐμοῦ εἶ. For the phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in Jn., see on 4:14.

The last clause, ὁ υἱὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, is omitted by א W Γ 33 124 and in the quotation of the passage by Clem. Alex. (see on v. 34). But the omissions here and in the preceding verse only serve to show that the difficulties of the argument were felt by scribes and exegetes alike. It is possible that the whole of v. 35 is an early gloss, brought in from familiarity with such passages as Gal. 4:30, Heb. 3:5.

36. ἐὰν οὖν ὁ υἱὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ κτλ. If v. 35 is part of the original text, then this sentence has in view the fact that the son and heir had a special privilege in the emancipation of his father’s slaves. Cf. Gal. 5:1. But if v. 35 may be treated as a gloss, then v. 36 relates itself naturally to v. 34: “You are the slaves of sin; but if the Son (ὁ υἱός used absolutely, as at 3:35) make you free (cf. v. 32), you will be free indeed.” What the Son does will be ratified by the Father.

ἐλεύθερος, ἐλευθεροῦν, do not occur elsewhere in Jn., and in the Synoptists only at Mt. 17:26 do we find ἐλεύθερος. ὄντως is not used elsewhere by Jn.

37. οἶδα ὅτι σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐστε κτλ., “I know that you are of the stock of Abraham, but, despite that, you are the slaves of sin, for you seek to kill me, my word not being operative in you.” This seems to be the sequence of the argument. The metaphor that they are the slaves of sin and need emancipation is now dropped; and Jesus tells them in the verses which follow that, sinners as they are, it is the devil who is their spiritual father.

ὅτι ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐμὸς οὐ χωρεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. Cf. v. 31 above; and see note on 5:38, where we have τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν μένοντα, which means almost the same. The real cause of the Jews’ enmity to Jesus was a moral cause; His revelation did not abide or work in their hearts.

χωρεῖν is used transitively 2:6, and this use, “to hold,” is common. But in the present passage it is used intransitively, and its precise meaning is hard to define. In 2 Macc. 3:40 it is used of the spreading of a report τὰ μὲν καθʼ Ἡλιόδωρον … οὕτως ἐχώρησεν; and the R.V. renders here “my word hath not free course in you,” or, as Moffatt puts it, “makes no headway among you.” This is, perhaps, to introduce the idea of movement a little more than is justifiable. Of the Latin versions, a has requiescit, c has est, and Jerome’s Vulgate has capit. Accordingly, the R.V. margin gives as a possible rendering “hath no place in you,”¹ which would almost identify χωρεῖν here with μένειν at 5:38. We may compare Xenophon, Œconom. c. 20 § 21, τὸ γὰρ τὰς μὲν δαπάνας χωρεῖν ἐντελεῖς … of expenses continuing undiminished.² This we take to be the true meaning of χωρεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, “continues in you,” with a suggestion of operative activity. Jerome’s literal rendering non capit in uobis, “does not hold in you,” means the same thing.

38. The true text of this verse is doubtful, there being variants for nearly every word.

Westcott-Hort read: ἃ ἐγὼ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῶ· καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε, giving as the “Western” reading ἐγὼ ἃ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρί μου [ταῦτα] λαλῶ· καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἑωράκατε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν ποιεῖτε.

א D N Γ Δ Θ and Syr. sin. support the insertion of μου (om. B C L T W) after πατρί in the first clause, and of ὑμῶν (also found in C) after πατρός in the second clause.

ἠκούσατε in the second clause is read by א^cD B C L W Θ, but א*DΓ Δ N and Syr. sin. have ἑωράκατε, probably by assimilation with the first clause: the rec. τῷ πατρί in the second clause (for τοῦ πατρός) is due to the same cause.

The Vulgate has: “ego quod uidi apud patrem loquor, et uos quae uidistis apud patrem uestrum facitis,” and with this the evidence of Tatian agrees.

If the pronouns μου and ὑμῶν are omitted, ὁ πατήρ must stand for the same person in both clauses, and the second clause would have to be imperative: “do ye therefore the things which ye heard from the Father.” But this does not agree well with the context.

We translate: “I speak of what I have seen with my Father; but (καί being used for ἀλλά; see on 1:10) you do what you heard from your father,” sc. the devil (v. 41). ἐγώ and ὑμεῖς are placed for emphasis of distinction at the beginning of the two clauses respectively.

ἐγὼ ἅ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρί μου λαλῶ. Cf. v. 28 above, and see especially on 5:19. παρὰ τῷ πατρί μου, apud patrem, is not to be referred to the pre-incarnate life of the Son (cf. 17:5 παρὰ σεαυτῷ), or interpreted with Abbott (Diat. 2355) as “in the home of my Father,” i.e. heaven. The reference is to the perpetual vision which the Incarnate Son had of His Father’s will (see 5:19). For ἑώρακα as occasionally used of spiritual vision, see on 3:32. For λαλεῖν in Jn., see on 3:11.

καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν (cf. 16:22) κτλ. The contrast between λαλῶ and ποιεῖτε is marked. Jesus speaks of the truths which the Father has given Him, but the Jews do the sinful things which the devil suggests, the pres. tense ποιεῖτε indicating a continual doing. τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν is identified with τοῦ διαβόλου at v. 44; but this has not yet been made explicit by Jesus, and, in fact, the Jews’ reply shows that they do not yet understand the tremendous severity of His words.

39. ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ ἐστιν, “Our father is Abraham.” They repeat what they have said before (v. 33). It was true, in so far as their physical pedigree was concerned; but Jesus tells them that they are not true sons of Abraham if their conduct is unlike his. His reply is almost in the words used by Paul οὐδʼ ὅτι εἰσὶν σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, πάντες τέκνα (Rom. 9:7). He had admitted (v. 37) that they were σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, but this natural descent did not, by itself, guarantee all the privileges which belong to the τέκνα who are Abraham’s true heirs (cf. Gal. 3:7, 9).

εἰ τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ ἐστε, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ποιεῖτε. “If you are Abraham’s children, do Abraham’s works,” ποιεῖτε being imperative.

40. νῦν δέ, “but as things are,” ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖναι: cf. v. 37 and 7:1, 25.

ἄνθρωπον. A difficulty has been found in the use of this word as applied (here only) to Himself by Jesus. Nowhere else in the N.T. is He described as “a man,” for Rom. 5:15 and 1 Tim. 2:5 both imply that He was ἄνθρωπος in a unique sense. Cf. Acts 2:22, 17:31, where He is spoken of as ἀνήρ. But it is hypercritical to find offence in this manner of expression. It would be out of place in the writings of a second-century theologian, who had reached the point of seeing the difficulties in the formulation of the doctrine of the Incarnation; but for a first-century writer, who was combating with special care the idea that Christ had not come “in the flesh,” it is quite natural.¹ The expression is used sine preiudicio deitatis, and that Jesus should have described Himself as “a person who has spoken the truth to you” in discussion with Jews who did not accept Him as divine is not surprising.

ἥν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. This is the perpetual teaching of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, sc. that His words reveal the mind of the Father, who taught them to Him; cf. v. 26 and the references given in the note at that place.

τοῦτο Ἀβραὰμ οὐκ ἐποίησεν. Abraham welcomed the heavenly messengers (Gen. 18:3); he did not seek to kill them.

41. Paulatim procedit castigatio is the comment of Grotius on the severe denunciation which follows.

ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν. “You,” with emphasis, “do the works of your father,” sc. the devil, although that is not yet said explicitly.

The Jews still misapprehend what is meant. They say, first, that if it is being suggested that they are not the legitimate descendants of Abraham and Sarah, it is not true; and secondly, that if it is spiritual and not physical descent that is in question, then their Father is God. The sentence is very much compressed.

ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐκ ἐγεννήθημεν (so B D*; οὐ γεγεννήμεθα is the rec. reading with א^cC D²N W Γ Δ Θ). It has been held by some expositors, both ancient and modern, that the Jewish disputants mean to affirm by these words the legitimacy of the spiritual relation of Israel to Yahweh. See on 1:12 for the conception of Israel as Yahweh’s wife, and Israelites as His children, in contradistinction to the heathen or Samaritans. Idolatry was fornication, and those who went after other gods were τέκνα πορνείας (Hos. 2:4). This is a possible interpretation of ἐκ πορνείας οὐκ ἐγεννήθημεν, and accords well with what follows; but it is simpler to take the words literally and to regard them as a reaffirmation of σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐσμεν … ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ ἐστιν (vv. 33, 39), “we were not begotten of fornication” (see on 1:13).

ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν θεόν. As for spiritual parentage, it was a fundamental and often expressed principle of the Israelites that Yahweh was their Father; cf. Ex. 4:22, Deut. 32:6, Isa. 63:16, 64:8. This is a wholly different figure from that of Israel as Yahweh’s wife, and it is difficult to believe that there is a sudden transition from the one figure to the other, as we must suppose if ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐκ ἐγεννήθημεν is to be interpreted of spiritual fornication, i.e. idolatry.

The sentence “We have one Father, even God,” is, then, not to be taken in strict connexion with what immediately precedes. It is a new plea, put forward for the Jewish disputants, who are beginning to understand that Jesus has been speaking of spiritual, not natural, parentage.

42. The rec. adds οὖν after εἶπεν, with א D Δ; om. B C L N T WΓ Θ.

εἰ ὁ θεός κτλ., “If God were your Father, you would love me.” This is the same argument as that in 1 Jn. 5:1, 2, sc. “If you were the children of God, you would love God, and, as whoever loves a father loves his son, therefore you would love Jesus, His Son.” The Jews have turned the argument, so that now spiritual fatherhood is in question, and Jesus shows them what the consequences of this spiritual fatherhood must be.

ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον, sc. “for I, even I who speak to you (ἐγώ being emphatic), came forth from God,” i.e. in the Incarnation. ἐκ θεοῦ is a phrase that has found a place in the Nicene Creed; while as early as 196 b.c. Ptolemy Epiphanes was described as ὑπάρχων θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ καὶ θεᾶς.¹

Attempts have been made to distinguish ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. 16:28) and ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. 13:3, 16:30), but they will not bear scrutiny. See on 1:44; and cf. 16:27 and the note there.

καὶ ἥκω (cf. 1 Jn. 5:20). The present tense is emphatic, “and I am here.”

οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα. This is repeated from 7:28, and with the same significance, “I have not come of myself,” i.e. without a Divine mission, “but God sent me.” For this “sending” of Christ by the Father, see on 3:17; and cf. 17:8.

43. διὰ τί τὴν λαλιὰν τὴν ἐμὴν οὐ γινώσκετε; For λαλιά, see on 4:42: it does not mean “talk” in any disparaging sense (as it sometimes does in classical writers), but “manner of speech.” The Jewish disputants did not appreciate the spiritual idiom of Jesus’ words, in which they did not recognise the Divine accent.

ὅτι οὐ δύνασθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν. ἀκούειν with the accusative always means in Jn., to perceive by hearing, as distinct from hearing with appreciation and intelligence, when ἀκούειν takes the genitive (see on 3:8; and cf. 5:37). Here, then, the incapacity of the Jews for “hearing” the message of Jesus is an even graver disability than that of their failure to understand it. As He said at v. 37, His λόγος or message had no place in them. It did not appeal to them at all. Their in-capacity was, as it were, a spiritual deafness, and not merely an intellectual stupidity. See on 12:40; and cf. v. 47 below.

The contrast in the two clauses of the verse is between γινώσκειν and ἀκούειν rather than between λαλιά and λόγος. There is a difference between the usage of these words, but it cannot be sharply pressed in Jn.: see on 3:11.

44. ὑμεῖς (an emphatic beginning) ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ κτλ., “You are of your father, the devil.” Similar language is ascribed to Jesus Mt. 13:38, 23:15.

The sentence would admit of the translation, “You are of the father of the devil”; and Hilgenfeld, with some other critics, have found here a trace of Gnostic doctrine. According to the Ophites, Ialdabaoth, the God of the Jews, was the father of the serpent (Iren. Hœr. I. xxx. 6, 10). But such a notion is not relevant to this context, the evangelist representing Jesus as telling the Jews plainly for the first time that they are the devil’s children, a climax of denunciation to which the preceding verses have led up. Closely parallel in language and in thought is 1 Jn. 3:8 ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει.

καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν, “And your will is to do the lusts of your father,” θέλετε indicating a settled purpose of will.

ἀνθρωποκτόνος occurs elsewhere in the Greek Bible only at 1 Jn. 3:15. In the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII. vii. 5) the devil is alluded to as ὁ ἀνθρωποκτόνος ὄφις.

That he was “a murderer from the beginning” is probably a reference to the Jewish doctrine that death was a consequence of the Fall, which was due to the devil’s prompting; cf. Wisd. 2:24 φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, and see Rom. 5:12. ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς is used thus in 1 Jn. 3:8 (quoted above); cf. Eccles. 3:11, Mt. 19:4. See on 15:27.

The allusion, however, may be to the murder of Abel by Cain. At 1 Jn. 3:12 we have Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξε τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, and three verses after we find ὁ μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωποκτόνος.

Whatever be the precise reference of the words ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, their appositeness to the argument is derived from the fact that the Jews were seeking to kill Jesus (see vv. 37, 40), who now explains to them that their murderous intent is due to their spiritual parentage. They are doing the works of their father (v. 41).

καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ ἔστηκεν. οὐκ is read by א B*D L N W Θ, and must be preferred to the rec. οὐχ. Hence we have ἔστηκεν, and not ἕστηκεν, which would be the perfect of ἵστημι, used like a present, “has no footing in the truth.” But ἔστηκεν, the impft. of στήκω, follows naturally after the impft. ἦν, non stetit, as the Vulgate renders it.

ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῳ. For ἀλήθεια in Jn. see on 1:14. Mention of the falseness of the devil may have primary reference here to his deceitful words of temptation (Gen. 3:4), which led to sin and death.

For the phrase “the truth is not in him (us),” cf. 1 Jn. 1:8, 2:4 and 1 Macc. 7:18.

ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ. It is the devil’s nature to be false; “when he tells a lie, he speaks out of his own inmost being”: cf. Mt. 12:34 ἐκ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ. Much stress is laid in Jn. on the repeated assurance of Jesus, ἐγὼ ἐξ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλάλησα (12:49; and see on 7:17). His words always express the mind of God; while the devil’s words only express his own false nature. In contradistinction to this, it is said (16:13) that the Holy Spirit will lead into all truth, because “He will not speak of Himself (ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ), but will speak of that which He shall hear.” This contrast is noted by Origen (Comm. in Joann. 346).

ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ. Jn. uses the word ψεύστης frequently (8:55, 1 Jn. 1:10, 2:4, 22, 4:20, 5:10), just because he dwells on the significance of ἀλήθεια (see on 1:14). ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ may mean (a) the father of a liar, or (b) the father of a lie, according as αὐτοῦ is masculine or neuter. Probably the latter rendering is right, ὡς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ ψεύδους ψεύστης ἐστίν (Origen, Comm. in Joann. 347).

Westcott would render the sentence differently, sc. “Whenever a man speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for his father also is a liar.” But it is difficult to supply a new subject to the verb, between ὅταν and λαλῇ.¹ The point is not that the Jews have been lying, for they have not been charged with lying up to this point (cf. v. 55), but that they are following the promptings of their father the devil, who is both a murderer and a liar, in seeking to kill Jesus. And this leads up naturally to the next verse. They are trusting to the promptings of a liar, but they will not trust Jesus who tells them the truth. Indeed, it is because He speaks the truth that His words are unwelcome, for His hearers are spiritual sons of one in whom the truth is not.

45. ἐγὼ δὲ ὅτι τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ πιστεύετέ μοι, “But as for me (ἐγώ being placed first for emphasis), because I speak the truth, you do not believe me.” Truth is uncongenial to them. Cf. 3:19; and see on 16:7 for τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω.

πιστεύειν τα is not to be confused with that deeper faith which is expressed by πιστεύειν εἴς τινα (see on v. 31).

46. τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει με περὶ ἁμαρτίας; No answer to this challenge is recorded. Probably no answer was attempted. His hearers did not understand, of course, that Jesus was literally χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (Heb. 4:15); but they could prove nothing to the contrary, and they knew it. The phrase ἐλέγχειν περὶ ἁμαρτίας occurs again 16:8, where see note.

After a pause, as we may suppose, Jesus then resumes the argument, “If I tell the truth (and none of you has accused me of being a liar), why do you not believe me?”

47. ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, i.e. the true child of God: cf. 1 Jn. 3:10, 4:6, 5:19, 3 Jn. 11, and see on ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν (1:13).

The principle that it is only the true child of God who can hear God’s words is frequently stated in Jn.; see on 7:17 and on 8:43 above. The man who is not “of God” is not in spiritual affinity with Divine things, and does not catch the sound of the Divine voice. As has been pointed out already (see on 3:8, 5:37), ἀκούειν with a following accusative signifies in Jn. a mere hearing, while ἀκούειν with a genitive implies a hearing with intelligence, the appreciation of the meaning of what has been said. Thus at 1 Jn. 4:6 the distinction between the man who is, and the man who is not, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ is that the former understands the apostolic teaching (ἀκούει ἡμῶν), while the latter does not understand it. This is not exactly the distinction drawn out here, where the contrast is between the man who is spiritually deaf and the man who hears God’s voice, although he may not be able perfectly to interpret it.

ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστέ. We should expect οὐκ ἐστέ to precede ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (as at 10:26), but emphasis is gained by altering the order of the words from that in the first clause of the verse.

48. οὐ καλῶς λέγομεν ἡμεῖς κτλ., the emphasis resting on ἡμεῖς: “We are right, after all.” For καλῶς λέγειν, cf. 4:17, 13:13.

Σαμαρείτης εἶ σύ. For Σαμαρείτης, cf. 4:9, 39. Jesus had been combating their claim to be the true children of Abraham (vv. 39, 40), and had thus challenged their boasted spiritual privileges. This was a principal point with the Samaritans, who would never allow that the Jews had any exclusive right to the promises made to Abraham and his seed. And so, observing, as they thought, that Jesus agreed with their despised Samaritan neighbours, they said contemptuously, “You, after all, are only a Samaritan.” The position of σύ at the end of the sentence is emphatic.

καὶ δαιμόνιον ἕχεις. This had been said before (7:20, where see note) by the people, and it was said again (10:20). The Jewish disputants say it here, with a touch of contempt: “You must be mad, or you would not talk in this way.” There may be an allusion to the charge recorded by the Synoptists (Mk. 3:22) as having been made against Jesus by scribes from Jerusalem, that “He casts out demons by the prince of demons”; but the emphasis laid in Jn. on demoniac possession is always in connexion with the dementia which was supposed to be its consequence (see Introd., p. clxxvii). It is not put forward in Jn. (either at 7:20 or 10:20) as a sign of wickedness, which is implied in Mk. 3:22.

49. Jesus does not take any notice of the imputation, “You are a Samaritan.” That was not so offensive to Him as it was intended to be, for He looked to the day when the rivalries between Jews and Samaritans would disappear (4:21). His reply is mild and calm: “I am not mad.” His claim to be God’s messenger and to speak with a delegated authority (v. 42) did not arise out of a disordered brain, but from His fixed purpose of “honouring His Father,” τιμῶ τὸν πατέρα μου. Cf. 7:18 ὁ ζητῶν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν. For ὁ πατήρ μου, see on 2:16.

His Jewish adversaries, on the other hand, had been insulting, ὑμεῖς ἀτιμάζετέ με. Cf. 5:23, where it has been said ὁ μὴ τιμῶν τὸν υἱὸν οὐ τιμᾷ τὸν πατέρα.

50. However, He goes on to explain that their insulting words did not affect Him. ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ ζητῶ τὴν δόξαν μου: if He did so, it would be nothing (cf. 5:41, 7:18, 8:54).

ἔστιν ὁ ζητῶν καὶ κρίνων, “there is One who seeks (my honour), and (in doing so) pronounces judgment (as between us).” It is only the δόξα that comes from God that is worth having (5:44, 8:54). To win the approval of God for any act or thought is to be “judged”; and this Jesus applied to Himself, strange as the thought may be to us of the Father “judging” the Son. But we cannot separate ζητῶν from κρίνων, and ὁ ζητῶν refers to the Father as seeking to honour the Son (see on v. 54).

There is no incongruity, even of expression, with 5:22, where the office of the judgment of mankind is reserved to the Son Himself.

51. ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν introduces a summary (see on 1:51) of what Jesus has been leading up to (cf. vv. 34, 58). If they keep His teaching, they will have eternal life.

ἐάν τις τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον κτλ. So א B C D L W; the rec., with NO, has τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν (from v. 43). “To keep the word” of Christ or of God (τὸν λογὸν τηρεῖν) is a characteristic phrase in Jn.; cf. vv. 52, 55, 14:23, 24, 15:20, 17:6, 1 Jn. 2:5. It is practically identical in meaning with τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμάς (see on 14:21; and cf. Introd., p. lxvii). Cf. 5:24, where he who “hears” and “believes” is promised eternal life; and see 11:26, 12:47.

The phrase “shall never see death” is a Hebraism for “shall never die.” See on 3:3 for ἰδεῖν, used as θεωρεῖν (see on 2:23) is used here, in the sense of “participate in” or “have experience of.” “To see death,” meaning “to die,” is found Ps. 89:48, Lk. 2:26, Heb. 11:5. The promise given here is not, of course, one of exemption from the death of the body, which is not in question. But the man who “keeps the word” of Christ has eternal life already. See 14:23.

To the Jews’ Suggestion that Jesus is Not as Great as Abraham Was, Despite His Claims, He Replies that He Was in Existence Before Abraham (vv. 52–58)

For οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (cf. vv. 22, 31, 48, 57), see on 1:19. They misunderstood the meaning of Christ`s saying, interpreting it of exemption from physical death. They thought He was mad: νῦν ἐγνώκαμεν, “now we are sure,” ὅτι δαιμόνιον ἔχεις. Cf. v. 48.

Abraham and the prophets had “kept the word” of Yahweh, and yet they had died (cf. Zech. 1:5). Was Jesus really claiming to be greater than Yahweh? Was His word more powerful? He ventured to say ἐάν τις τὸν λόγον μου τηρήσῃ, οὐ μὴ γεύσηται (the rec. has γεύσεται, but with insufficient support) θανάτου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

γευεῖν θανάτου, “to taste of death,” means “to die,” and is used of the death of Jesus Himself at Heb. 2:9. Cf. for the same usage Mt. 16:28, Mk. 9:1, Lk. 9:27, 2 Esd. 6:26. The phrase is a Hebrew one, although not found in the O.T., and Wetstein (on Mt. 16:28) has collected some instances of its use in the Talmud. By pressing the distinction between θεωρεῖν θάνατον in v. 51 and γευεῖν θανάτου in v. 52, it has been inferred that Jn.’s report makes the Jews deliberately misquote what Jesus had said; but this is not probable. That they misunderstood it is certain.

In a saying of Jesus among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri¹ (about 280 a.d.) there is found, as restored by the editors: [πᾶς ὅστις] ἂν τῶν λόγων τούτ[ων ἀκούσῃ, θανάτου] οὐ μὴ γεύσηται. If the conjectural restoration is accurate, this closely resembles Jn. 8:52, and in any case οὐ μὴ γεύσηται provides a parallel.

53. μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ; Cf. the similar question at 4:12.

ὅστις ἀπέθανεν. The relative ὅστις does not occur again in Jn., although we have ἥτις (1 Jn. 1:2) and ὅτι. How could Jesus claim exemption from death for those who kept His word, when the saints of old, Abraham and the prophets, had died like every one else?

τίνα σεαυτὸν ποιεῖς; They are beginning to suspect that His claims are blasphemous, an accusation which has not yet been made in this discourse. Cf. 5:18, 10:33, 19:7. Who does He really claim to be? As usual, Jesus gives no explicit answer to this question; but, having first defended Himself again in reply to the charge of undue self-assertion (vv. 54, 55), He makes a statement which implies that He is greater than Abraham (v. 56).

54. ἐὰν ἐγὼ δοξάσω (so א*B C*D W, as against δοξάζω of L N and the rec. text) ἐμαυτόν, ἡ δόξα μου οὐδέν ἐστιν. Cf. v. 50 and 5:31, 41, 7:18. In all these passages δόξα signifies honour (see on 1:14), and the contrast is between the δόξα that men can bestow and that which comes from God.

ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με, “it really is (ἔστιν being placed first for emphasis) my Father who honours me”; i.e. primarily by the honour given to Him in the power to do divine acts, which is a form of the Father’s “witness” (5:31, 36), but more generally the reference is to the honour and glory of His mission (3:16, 17) throughout His Incarnate Life, although this the Jews could not recognise. See on 17:22; and cf. 2 Pet. 1:17, λαβὼν παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν, referring to the Voice at the Transfiguration. See also on 1:14.

ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε (cf. 10:36 for constr.) ὅτι θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν. So they had said (v. 41). This is, for the first time, an explicit identification by Jesus of ὁ πατήρ μου with the God of Israel.

For ὑμῶν (א B*D, with the rec. text), A B²C L N W Δ Θ have ἡμῶν, ὅτι then being recitantis. The Coptic Q omits any possessive pronoun before “God.”

55. καὶ οὐκ ἐγνώκατε αὐτόν. So at 16:3; and cf. 1:10, 17:23, 25, 1 Jn. 3:1, 6. The verb οἶδα is used in similar contexts 7:28 (where see note) 8:19, 15:21. Although the Jews claimed God as their Father (v. 41), they did not know Him.

ἐγὼ δὲ οἶδα αὐτόν. Cf. 7:29 ἐγὼ οἶδα αὐτὸν ὅτι παρʼ αὐτοῦ εἰμι, and for the same claim, the verb γινώσκω being used, cf. 10:15, 17:25. See note on 1:26.

This unique knowledge of the Father, Jesus could not disclaim without denying the validity of His mission: ἔσομαι ὅμοιος ὑμῖν ψεύστης. He had not yet directly accused the Jewish objectors of lying, but He had told them that they were the children of the devil, who is the father of lies (v. 44).

ὅμοιος ὑμῖν. So A B D WΘ. ὑμῶν is read by א C L N Γ Δ (cf. Job 35:8), which would be doubtful Greek.

56. Jesus now explains that He is truly “greater” than Abraham (cf. v. 53).

Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἠγαλλιάσατο (exultauit, cf. 5:35) ἵνα εἴδῃ (this is the reading of א A B*) τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν, i.e. probably the day of Christ’s birth or appearance in the flesh (cf. Job 3:1). “The days of the Son of Man” (Lk. 17:22, 26) was the Rabbinical description of the Messianic age generally.

The moment in Abraham’s life to which reference is made is not certain. Many expositors have referred to Gen. 17:17, where Abraham “laughed” at the idea of Sarah becoming “a mother of nations,” but this was the laughter of incredulity. That Abraham “received the promises” is noted at Heb. 11:17, and it is probable that the Rabbinical idea was that Abraham had welcomed the implicit promise that Messiah should be born of his seed, in which all nations were to be blessed (Gen. 12:3, quoted Gal. 3:8 as Messianic). Westcott quotes a Jewish tradition (Bereshith, R 44) that Abraham saw the whole history of his descendants in the vision of Gen. 15:6f., when he “rejoiced with the joy of the law.” With this agrees 2 Esd. 3:14, “Abraham … thou lovedst, and unto him only thou shewedst the end of the times secretly by night.”¹

The constr. ἠγαλλιάσατο² ἵνα εἴδῃ seems to mean “exulted in the anticipation of seeing,” which is not far removed from “desired to see”; and this rendering is adopted several times in the Latin version of Origen (Lommatzsch, vi. 38, ix. 145, xiv. 425; cited by Abbott, Diat. 2688), and also appears in the Syriac commentary of Isho’dad, which embodies much early material. We should expect an infinitive instead of ἵνα εἴδῃ, but ἵνα cannot be judged incorrect. Milligan¹ cites from a third-century papyrus ἐχάρην ἵνα σὲ ἀσπάζομαι, “I was glad to have an opportunity of greeting you.”

καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη. This seems to say that Abraham in the other world was joyfully conscious of Christ’s appearance in the flesh, a strange and mysterious saying, which is taken up in one of the legends of the Descensus ad inferos. There it is said that when the news of Christ came to Hades there was joy among the O.T. saints, καὶ εὐθὺς ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἀβραὰμ μετὰ τῶν πατριαρχῶν καὶ τῶν προφητῶν ἑνωθείς, καὶ χαρᾶς ὁμοῦ πλησθέντες εἶπον πρὸς ἀλλήλους.²

57. καὶ Ἀβραὰμ ἑώρακέ σε; The Jewish objectors are represented as interpreting the reply of Jesus to mean that Abraham, while alive on earth, had seen Him. The rec. καὶ Ἀβραὰμ ἑώρακας; is strongly supported, being read by א^cA C D N; but the true reading seems to be καὶ Ἀβραὰμ ἑώρακέ σε; “And did Abraham see thee?” This is read by א* and supported by Syr. sin. and the Coptic vss. (including Q). B WΘ have ἑώρακες. The reading ἑώρακέ σε· εἶπεν would be in uncials ⲉⲱⲣⲁⲕⲉⲥⲉⲉⲓⲡⲉⲛ, which by dropping one ε would become ⲉⲱⲣⲁⲕⲉⲥⲉⲓⲡⲉⲛ or ἑώρακες· εἶπεν, and then ἑώρακες was corrected into ἑώρακας, the rec. reading. In v. 56 Jesus had not said that He had seen Abraham, but that Abraham has seen Him, or His day; and there is no reason to suppose that the Jews are represented as misquoting His words, as we must assume if the received text be followed.

πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις. Chrysostom reads τεσσαράκοντα, but this is plainly due to an attempt to reconcile the statement with such passages as Lk. 3:23. At fifty years of age, the Levites were superannuated from further service (Num. 4:3), and all that the sentence means is, “You are not yet an old man.” Irenæus, however, resting his argument on this passage, concludes that Jesus was not far short of fifty years of age at the conclusion of His earthly ministry (Hær. II. xxii. 6), and that therefore its duration exceeded the single year which the Synoptists suggest.

58. ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. We have had this solemn form of affirmation (see on 1:51) twice before in this discourse, at vv. 34, 51; and in each case, as here, it sums up what has gone before.

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί, i.e. “before Abraham came into being, I AM.” The contrast between the verbs γίγνεσθαι and εἶναι is as unmistakable as it is in Ps. 90:2, πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη γενηθῆναι … ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ, “before the mountains came into being … from age to age THOU ART.”¹ Of God it could not be said that He “came into being” or “became,” for He IS. Cf. 1:18 and Col. 1:17 for this absolute use of εἶναι; see also on 1:1. It has been pointed out already (see Introd., p. cxxi) that ἐγὼ εἰμί used absolutely, where no predicate is expressed or implied, is the equivalent of the solemn אֲנִי־הוּא, I (am) He, which is the self-designation of Yahweh in the prophets. A similar use of the phrase is found at 13:19. It is clear that Jn. means to represent Jesus as thus claiming for Himself the timeless being of Deity, as distinct from the temporal existence of man. This is the teaching of the Prologue to the Gospel about Jesus (1:1, 18); but here (and at 13:19) Jesus Himself is reported as having said I (am) He, which is a definite assertion of His Godhead, and was so understood by the Jews. They had listened to His argument up to this point; but they could bear with it no longer. These words of mystery were rank blasphemy (see 10:33), and they proceeded to stone Him.

For other occurrences in Jn. of ἐγὼ εἰμί without a predicate following, see 6:20, 9:9, 18:6, as well as vv. 24, 28 of the present chapter.

The Angry People Would Stone Jesus, But He Escapes from Them into Hiding (v. 59)

59. ἦραν οὖν λίθους κτλ. So again at 10:31–33, when He said “I and the Father are One,” the Jews attempted to stone Him for blasphemy. The Temple was not finished, and stones were lying about its courts (cf. Mk. 13:1); Josephus (Antt. XVII. ix. 3) gives an account of the stoning of soldiers in the Temple precincts.

Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη, “But He hid Himself,” as again at 12:36.

After ἱεροῦ the rec. text (so NΘ^corr) adds διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν (from Lk. 4:30) καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, probably suggesting that the escape of Jesus from the angry Jews was miraculous. But of this there is no trace in the true text, ending with ἱεροῦ, which is supported by א B D W Θ* latt sah arm. The words παρῆγεν οὕτω are added in the rec. text to the interpolation from Lk. 4:30, in order to introduce c. 9.

¹ As it held thirteen persons, it must have been a large boat.

² The supposition that there was another Bethsaida on the western shore lacks evidence, and is improbable. Cf. 12:21.

³ It is said that grass is found there at all seasons (W. M. Christie, D.C.G. ii. 589); cf. Rix (Tent and Testament, pp. 265 ff.) for the geographical problem.

¹ Josephus (B.J. iii. 3, 5) has τῆς πρὸς Τιβεριάδα λίμνης, which Niese notes as having been altered in inferior MSS. to Τιβεριάδος.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

N Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε 19). Dispersed through the libraries of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Vienna, and British Museum. vi. Some pages are missing. Edited by H. S. Cronin in Cambridge Texts and Studies (1899).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

Θ Koridethi (ε 050). Tiflis. vii–ix. Discovered at Koridethi, in Russian territory, and edited by Beermann & Gregory (Leipzig, 1913). The text is akin to that of fam. 13, fam. 1, and the cursives 28, 565, 700 See Lake and Blake in Harvard Theol. Review (July 1923) and Streeter, The Four Gospels. Cf. also J.T.S. Oct. 1915, April and July 1925.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ See Introd., p. xcvi. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 413, hazards the guess that the words ἀναβὰς εἰς τὸ ὄρος ἐκάθητο ἐκεῖ originally stood in the text of Mk.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

² Most explicitly by Hort, Select Readings, p. 77.

MSS. manuscripts

³ See Introd., p. xviii.

¹ Burkitt (Ev. da Mepharrsshê, ii. 313) shows that the Syriac tradition is against omitting τὸ πάσχα.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ See Introd., p. xcvii.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ About 100 a.d., cited by Milligan, Vocab.

² xvi. c. 2, § 45, quoted by G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr. of Holy Land, p. 454. who adds, “The pickled fish of Galilee were known throughout the Roman world.”

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Cf. Swete, J.T.S., Jan. 1902, p. 163.

¹ Hor. Hebr., iii. 302.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Turner (J.T.S., Jan. 1925, p. 148) suggests that it may have been this incident which attracted the attention of Herod (cf. Mk. 6:14).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. cxx.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ See Introd., p. cxi.

² This is the only place, as Wendt points out, where the word σημεῖα is placed in the mouth of Jesus by Jn.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Midrash Koheleth, p. 73, quoted by Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., in loc.

² J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 152; cf. p. 25.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ The phrase occurs Ignatius, ad Rom. vii.; cf. vv. 51, 53.

¹ Wetstein gives the reference “Isaacus Arama in Akodas Jizhac.”

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Cf. Introd., pp. xciii, cxl.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Cf. introd., pp. cix, cixii.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

MSS. manuscripts

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. clxvii.

² For the sacramental bearing of vv. 51–58, see Waterland, Doctrine of the Eucharist, c. vi.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ See Introd., p. clxxiv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

² Chase traces it to Syriac influence (Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 21).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ At 4:34 Christ’s “food” is the doing the Father’s Will. Here the thought is rather that the Son “feeds” on the Father’s Life, assimilating and sharing it.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Recent excavations at Tell-Hum have disclosed the remains of a large building which its discoverers identify with this synagogue.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ For patristic comments on this passage, see Gore, Dissertations, P. 303 f.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

² Cf. Introd., p. 34.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Cf. Introd., p. 33.

² See Moulton-Milligan, Vocab. of N.T., s.v. ἐκ.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

³ Fragm. on The Seventy Apostles.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. 134.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ See Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 143; Chase, Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 102; and the art. “Judas Iscariot” in D.C.G.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

¹ For the position of c. 5 in the text, cf. Introd., pp. 17, 30.

² Introd., p. 108.

³ Introd., p. 116.

⁴ See Introd., p. 103.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

¹ Cf. Torrey, Harvard Theol. Review, Oct. 1923, p. 334, who presses the force of ἔστιν as representfng an Aramaic original, and holds that the Gospel must have been composed before Jerusalem had been destroyed.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

¹ See G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 566, and Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 170; cf. also D.C.G., s.v. “Bethesda.”

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ Cf. Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, p. 55.

² Introd., p. lxxxvii.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

MSS. manuscripts

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

¹ Cambridge Biblical Essays (ed. H. B. Swete), p. 483.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Diat. 2537; see, for illustrations from the papyri, Moulton-Milligan, s.v. ἀποκρίομαι.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. cxxv.

² Cf. also Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 16, p. 813 P.

¹ Origen, in Num. Hom. xxii. 4 (Lommatzsch, x. 282).

² Horæ Semiticæ, No. v. p. 234 (ed. M. D. Gibson).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

¹ Cf. Burlutt, Gospel History and Transmission, p. 239.

² See Abbott, Diat. 2516.

¹ Cf. Abbott, Diat. 2066b.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ Cf. Schürer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, Eng. Tr., Div. ii. p. 85.

¹ See Introd., p. clx.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ This is the true construction, as supported by Syr. cur., the O.L., Origen, and Paul of Samosata; see on v. 28 for Chrysostom’s rendering.

² See v. 22, and Introd., p. cxxvii.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ Wendt (Gospel according to St. John, pp. 131 ff.) argues that vv. 28, 29, cannot belong to the original form of the discourse

MSS. manuscripts

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ Aboth x. 4, quoted by Westcott, in loc.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Grammar of N.T., p. 180.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ Aboth, ii. 8, quoted by Schoettgen, 1. P. 356.

² τί δοκεῖ ὑμῖν; (11:56) is a question, “What do you think?”

³ Abbott points out that ἐραυνᾶτε or ἐξεραυνᾶτε does not occur elsewhere in the Greek Bible as an imperative, the aorist being generally used when there is a command; cf 7:52 (Diat. 2439i).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ Cf. Kautzsch in D.B., extra p. 641.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

² E.B. 2551.

¹ The Antichrist Legend, p. 133.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Abbott (Diat. 2442–2443, 2473) traces the Johannine perfect to Hebrew influence, and says that we should have expected the aor. or the pres. rather than the perf. at 5:45. But, on the contrary, the perf. is right here and the aor. would be wrong, as it is wrong in the LXX often. See also Field, in loc.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Wendt (Gospel according to St. John, p. 64 n.) takes this view. Cf. ἐργάζεσθαι in 5:17 and Lk 13:14.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Shabb. fol. 130.

² Joma, f. 85, quoted by Wetstein.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ See Introd., p. xix, and on v. 1 above, for the dislocation of the text.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ Cf. Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 345.

¹ See Schürer History of Jewish People, Eng. Tr., ii. i. 177 f., 203 f. Thus Annas and Caiaphas are both called ἀρχιερεῖς (Lk. 3:2); and in Acts 4:6 we have Ἄννας ὁ ἀχιερεὺς καὶ Καϊάφας, although Aunas was out of office at the time.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

MSS. manuscripts

¹ Cf. Wordsworth and White, Nov. Test. Lat., in loc.; and see above on vv. 12, 25.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ See on 1:35 for this form.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ Quoted by E. C. Selwyn in J.T.S., Jan. 1912, p. 226.

² Cf. A. Robinson, Passion of St. Perpetua, p. 98.

³ Cf. Euseb. H.E. v. 1.22.

¹ Epist. 73:11; but cf. 63:8.

² J.T.S., Oct. 1922, p. 66 f. and cf. Jan. 1923, p. 174.

³ Harvard Theol. Review, Oct. 1923, p. 339.

⁴ Comm. in Ioan. Vol. 2. p. 250 (ed. Brooke); cf. also Hom. in Num. 17:4.

⁵ Basil’s comment on the river of Ps. 46:4 is: τίς δʼ ἂν εἴη ὁ ποταμὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον ἐκ τῆς πίστεως τῶν εἰς Χριστὸν πεπιστευκότων, ἐγγενόμενον τοῖς ἀξίοις; He then quotes Jn. 7:38 and 4:14.

⁶ Ephraim also ends the first clause with πινέτω (Hom. On our Lord. i. 41); and Tatian seems to have taken the same line, although this cannot be certain.

⁷ Syr. sin and Syr. cur. appear also to support this interpretation.

⁸ So Origen (Selecta in Deut., Lommatzsch, x. 374) speaks of that good land ἦς χείμαρρος ὁ Χριστός, ποτίζων τοῖς τῆς σοφίας νάμασιν.

¹ See Barnes, J.T.S., July 1922, p. 421.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ Routh, Rel. Sacr., iv. 34.

² E.B., 4594.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

MSS. manuscripts

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ See G. A. Smith. Histor. Geogr. of Holy Land, p. 428 n., for considerations which show that this was 0n the west side of Jordan

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

MSS. manuscripts

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

MSS. manuscripts

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

MS. manuscript

¹ See Conybeare, D.B. i. 154; and Burkitt, Two Lectures on the Gospels, p. 88.

² Perhaps Seeley’s comment hits on the truth: “He was seized with an intolerable sense of shame. He could not meet the eye of the crowd, or of the accusers, and perhaps at that moment least of all of the woman.… In His burning embarrassment and confusion He stooped down so as to hide His face, and began writing with His fingers on the ground” (Ecce Homo, c. ix.).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

MS. manuscript

¹ See Gwynn. Trans. R.I. Acad. xvii. p. 292.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

^{^[1]} Bernard, J. H. (1929). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. (A. H. McNeile, Ed.) (pp. 715–721). New York: C. Scribner’ Sons.

¹ For the section 7:53–8:11, see the notes at the end of this volume on the Pericope de Adultera.

² Strayer (J.T.S., 1900, p. 138) argues that the imagery was suggested by the Feast of Dedication or τὰ Φῶτα (10:22), in connexion with which he puts this discourse.

¹ Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., iii. 330.

² This majestic claim is weakened in the form in which it appears in the Acts of John (§ 95): λύχνος εἰμί σοι τῷ βλέποντί με.

³ Westcott quotes from Buxtorf a sentence from the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabb. c. 2) to the effect that “the first Adam was the light of the world”; but the parallelism seems to be only verbal. Indeed, the Hebrews had not any clear idea of the κόσμος as an ordered universe of being.

⁴ Abbott (Diat. 1748; cf. 435) urges that Mt.’s report must be wrong, and that what Jesus really said was, “Ye have the Light of the World.” But there is no evidence for this, nor would it suit the context, Mt. 5:13–16.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Cf. Introd., p. cx.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Ν Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε 19). Dispersed through the libraries of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Vienna, and British Museum. vi. Some pages are missing. Edited by H. S. Cronin in Cambridge Texts and Studies (1899).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ See also McNeile in Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 242.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ Cf. Hobhouse, The Church and the World, p. 352, Note D.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

¹ In the passage from Alciphron (Ep. 3:7) quoted by Field in support of this rendering, χωρεῖν is used transitively, and so the passage does not provide a parallel.

² Dr. L. C. Purser has pointed out this passage to me.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ Origen has it frequently (Comm. in Joann. 308, 313, 316, 317, etc.; but he has ἤτε … ἐποιειτε, 104).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

¹ See on 1:14.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

¹ i.e. on the Rosetta Stone; see Moulton-Milligan, Vocab. of N.T., s.v. ἐκ.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Westcott’s rendering was suggested by Middleton (On the Greek Article, ed. 1808, p. 362), who mentions an emendation τις for τό before ψεῦδος, which would remove the difficulty about the subject of the verb.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ New Sayings of Jesus, ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt (1904), p. 12.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ Cf. a fanciful version of a similar idea in the Testament of Abraham, § ix. (A).

² F. H. Chase (J.T.S., July 1925, p. 381) suggested that ἠγαλλιάσατε may be a primitive error for ἠγωνίσατο (cf. 18:36).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ Vocab., s.v. ἵνα.

² Evang. Nicodemi, II. ii (18).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Dr. L. C. Purser has pointed out to me a striking passage in Plutarch (De Ei apud Delphos, c. 20, p. 393) where εἶναι is similarly used for the timeless existence of Deity, being contrasted with γίγνεσθαι: Ἀλλʼ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς … καὶ ἔστι κατʼ οὐδένα χρόνον ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τὸν ἀκίνητον καὶ ἄχρονον … καὶ μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ κατὰ τοῦτον ὄντως ὄν, οὐ γεγονὸς οὐδʼ ἐσόμενον οὐδʼ ἀρξάμενον οὐδὲ παυσόμενον. Plutarch uses the remarkable expression ἀλλʼ εἶς ὢν ἑνὶ τῷ νῦν τὸ ἀεὶ πεπλήρωκε, “But He, being One with the One Now has filled up the Ever”; and adds that we should address God as εἷ ἕν, “Thou art One Being.”

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).