International Critical Commentary

18:1. ταῦτα εἰπών. As soon as the Prayer of Consecration was ended (see Introd., p. xx), Jesus and His disciples left the upper room, and went out, ἐξῆλθεν perhaps implying (as was in fact the case) that they went outside the city.

σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, sc. with the faithful Eleven (see on 2:2). This is one of the very rare occurrences of σύν in Jn. (see on 12:2), and it is exchanged for μετά within a couple of lines, μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (v. 2).

πέραν τοῦ χειμάρρου τοῦ Κέδρων. The Kedron gorge between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives rarely has any water in it. It is called χείμαρρος by Josephus as well as in the LXX (Neh. 2:15, 1 Macc. 12:37), but it is nearly always dry, except after very heavy rain.¹ The modern name is Wādy Sitti Maryam.

The majority of texts (א*B C L NΘ) give τῶν κέδρων; א*D W have τοῦ κέδρου; and AΔ c e f g q vg. give τοῦ κέδρων This last, despite the weakness of the MS. support, we take to be the true reading (as the Syriac vss. suggest), and that from which both the others have originated, owing to misunderstanding on the part of scribes. For κέδρων is the transliteration of the Hebrew קִדְרוֹן, dark, the name as applied to a torrent being perhaps equivalent to our Blackwater. Josephus treats it as a declinable noun in the nom. case. Twice in the LXX (2 Sam. 15:23, 1 Kings 15:13) we find τῶν κέδρων after χείμαρρος, the word being taken as a gen. pl., and the rendering of the phrase being “the ravine (or torrent) of the cedar trees.” It is said that at the time cedars grew on the Mount of Olives, and some may have been as low as the wādy at its base. But it is not likely that the ravine was called Kidron on that account. A Greek scribe, finding τοῦ κέδρων in his exemplar, would naturally take κέδρων as the gen. pl. of κέδρος, and would correct it either to τοῦ κέδρου or to τῶν κέδρων.²

The reading has been much discussed, because assuming τῶν κέδρων to have been the original reading, it has been argued that the evangelist was but ill acquainted with Hebrew names, if he supposed that Kidron meant “of the cedars.” But, as the LXX shows in the passages cited above, χείμαρρος τῶν κέδρων was treated as a correct rendering of נחל קדרון, and it might have been adopted by Jn. as the title familiar to Greek ears. We hold, however, that it is not the original reading in this verse, so that the argument based on it is worthless.

ὅπου ἦν κῆπος. Jn. does not give the name Gethsemane,³ nor does Lk.; Mk. 14:32, Mt. 26:36 have χωρίον (i.e. a farm or small property) οὗ τὸ ὄνομα Γεθσημανεί. Jn. alone speaks of it as κῆπος, i.e. it was one of the private gardens in the eastern outskirts of Jerusalem (cf. 19:41 for the garden of Joseph). The word κῆπος is common in the LXX, but in the N.T. is found only here, at v. 26, 19:41 (cf. 20:15), and Lk. 13:19. For ἦν, see on 11:18.

εἰς ὃν εἰσῆλθεν, the verb showing that it was an enclosed place. The site that is now shown was recognised as the Garden of the Agony in the fourth century at any rate, and it is quite possible that tradition accurately preserved its position from the beginning.

Jn. does not insert at this point any account of the Agony in Gethsemane, as the Synoptists do (Mk. 14:32f., Mt. 26:36f., Lk. 22:39f.); but the allusion to “the cup which the Father gave” (v. 11, where see note) indicates that the omission was not due to ignorance. We have seen (on 12:27) that the prayer there recorded is virtually the prayer of anguish at Gethsemane.

It has been suggested, indeed, that the Prayer of the Agony, if it followed here, would be inconsistent with the Prayer of Consecration and Farewell that Jn. has just placed on record; so different are the sublime calm and dignity of c. 17 from the sadness and shrinking of “remove this cup from me—yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt” (Mk. 14:36). But such a criticism would be at variance with the facts of human experience, in which the moments of greatest spiritual depression and trial often follow close on moods of the highest spiritual exaltation. And it may have been so with the Son of Man Himself.

2. ᾔδει δὲ καὶ Ἰούδας. The garden was a favourite resort of Jesus and His disciples (πολλάκις συνήχθη), and probably belonged to a friend. It is specially mentioned by Jn. that Judas knew the place. Jesus was not now trying to escape arrest (cf. 10:40), for Jn. is anxious to indicate that His surrender to His captors was voluntary. Jesus had told Judas to delay no longer the execution of his purpose (13:27), and He proceeded the same night to a place where Judas knew that He was accustomed to resort.

ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτόν, the pres. tense indicating that Judas was then engaged in the business of the betrayal. Cf. 13:11.

πολλάκις, only here in Jn. Jesus went to the garden, as His custom was (κατὰ τὸ ἔθος, Lk. 22:39), and probably not only on this last visit to Jerusalem. συνήχθη tells only that this was a place of habitual resort of Jesus and His disciples, but possibly they may have slept there occasionally. (Cf. Lk. 21:37, τὰς δὲ νύκτας ἐξερχόμενος ηὐλίζετο εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ καλούμενον Ἐλαιῶν.) If this be so, the sleep of the apostles in the garden during the hour preceding the arrest was natural indeed, although they had been bidden to keep awake.

3. The Synoptists say nothing about soldiers taking part in the arrest of Jesus, and mention only the emissaries of the Sanhedrim (Mk. 14:43, Lk. 22:52 stating that members of the Sanhedrim were themselves in the crowd). Jn. mentions these latter (ἐκ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων ὑπηρέτας) in the same terms that he has done before when telling of a projected arrest (7:32, where see the note for the constitution and authority of the Sanhedrim); but he adds here that Judas had brought with him also a detachment of soldiers (τὴν σπεῖραν).

Troops were always quartered in Fort Antonia, at festival seasons when the city was crowded, to be ready in case of a riot; and a representation from the Sanhedrim to the military authorities that soldiers might be needed to help the Temple guard (ὑπηρέτας: cf. 7:32) would naturally have been acted on. Pilate, the procurator, seems to have known that something important was taking place that night, for he was ready at an early hour in the morning to hear the case (v. 28; cf. Mt. 27:19, for the dream of Pilate’s wife). There is nothing improbable in Jn.’s statement that soldiers were present at the arrest.

The term σπεῖρα (if the soldiers were legionaries) was generally equivalent to the Latin cohors, which numbered 600 men. Polybius, indeed, uses it (xi. 23. 1) for manipulus, which is only one-third of a cohort. But here (if, as is probable, they were auxiliaries) and in the N.T. elsewhere (see esp. Acts 21:31) it numbered 1000 men (240 horse and 760 foot), commanded by a chiliarch (cf. v. 12 below), a tribunus militum. It is not, however, to be supposed that Jn. means that the whole strength of the regiment (cf. Mk. 15:16) was turned out to aid in the arrest of Jesus; the words λαβὼν τὴν σπεῖραν indicate no more than that Judas had got the help of “the cohort,” i.e. a detachment, with whom the commanding officer of the garrison came (v. 12), in view of possible developments.

Fam. 13 insert ὅλην before τὴν σπεῖραν (probably from Mk. 15:16), which shows that the scribe of the common exemplar thought that τὴν σπεῖραν was not sufficiently definite.

καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ ἐκ τῶν φαρισαίων ὑπηρέτας, i.e. officers of the Sanhedrim (see on 7:32 for οἱ ἀρχ. καὶ οἱ Φαρις., as indicating the Sanhedrim in its official capacity). For ὑπηρέτας, cf. 18:12, 22, 19:6 and Mt. 26:58; they were the Temple police, under the control of the Sanhedrim.

μετὰ φανῶν καὶ λαμπάδων. It was the time of the Paschal full moon, but lights were brought, nevertheless, to search out the dark recesses of the garden, in case Jesus should attempt to hide Himself.

φανός (ἅπ. λεγ. in N.T.) is a “link” or “torch,” made of strips of wood fastened together, and λαμπάς is an ordinary torch-light, the word being used in later Greek for a lantern. Both were carried by Roman soldiers on duty; cf. Dion. Hal. xi. 5, ἐξέτρεχον ἅπαντες ἐκ τῶν σκηνῶν ἀθρόοι, φανοὺς ἔχοντες καὶ λαμπάδας.¹ Lights also were carried, when necessary, by the Temple guard; thus Lightfoot (on Lk. 22:4) quotes: “The ruler of the mountain of the Temple takes his walks through every watch with torches lighted before him” (Middoth i. 2).

καὶ ὅπλων. The Temple guard was not always armed (Joseph. B.J., iv. 4. 6), but on this occasion they probably carried weapons as well as the soldiers. Mk. 14:43 speaks of a crowd with swords and staves (ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων) who had been sent by the Sanhedrim.

εἰδώς. Cf. 13:1. Jn. is at every point careful to insist that Jesus foreknew the issues of His ministry, πάντα τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἐπʼ αὐτόν, “everything that was coming upon Him.”

ἐξῆλθεν, “went out,” sc. of the garden into which He had entered, εἰσῆλθεν (v. 1). The rec. text with א A C³L N Θ has ἐξελθὼν εἶπεν, but ἐξῆλθεν καὶ λέγει (B C*D) is more in the style of Jn. (see on 1:50).

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς. He does not address Himself directly to Judas, but to those who had come, armed, to arrest Him, and He asks Τίνα ζητεῖτε; Cf. 1:38, 20:15.

In the Synoptic narratives (Mk. 14:45, Mt. 26:49, Lk. 22:47) Judas comes forward and identifies Jesus by a kiss, that is, by kissing His hand, the recognised salutation from a disciple to His Master (not by kissing His cheek, as Western painters have been accustomed to depict the act). Jn. does not mention this treacherous sign, and his omission to do so is a difficulty in the way of critics who think that Jn. displays special animus against Judas (see on 12:6). His reason for the omission is probably that he is laying stress throughout on the voluntariness of Jesus’ acceptance of arrest. Jesus does not wait to be identified by any one, for He at once announces who He is. Jn.’s narrative seems to suggest that He had not been recognised in the uncertain light, even after He came out of the garden and asked, “Whom seek ye?” Tatian places the kiss of Judas immediately before v. 4, i.e. before Jesus came out of the garden; and if it is sought to bring the evangelical narratives into exact correspondence, Tatian’s solution may be the right one.¹

Jn. says (v. 5) that “Judas, who was in the act of delivering Him up” (ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτόν, cf. 13:2), was standing (εἱστήκει) with those who were making the arrest. Judas had done his part when he had guided the emissaries of the Sanhedrim to the place where Jesus was. The scene is described very vividly.

5. ἀπεκρ. αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον. “Jesus the Nazarene,” or “Jesus of Nazareth,” was the name by which He had been popularly known. The blind man was told that it was “Jesus of Nazareth” who was passing by (Mk. 10:47, Lk. 18:37). The man with the unclean devil addressed Him as “Thou Jesus of Nazareth” (Lk. 4:34). The two disciples on the way to Emmaus spoke of Him thus (Lk. 24:19). So did Peter in his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:22). In Mk.’s account of the Resurrection, the young man at the sepulchre says to the women, “Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth” (Mk. 16:6). After His arrest, He was familiarly described in this way by the maid in the court of the high priest (Mk. 14:67, Mt. 26:71). It is clear that the instructions given to those sent to apprehend Him were that they should take “Jesus of Nazareth.” They inquired for Him by the designation by which He was best known. See 19:19.

Jn.’s narrative indicates, as has been said above, that Jesus identified Himself voluntarily, by saying, “I am He,” in answer to the request for “Jesus of Nazareth.” And ἐγώ εἰμι in v. 5 may mean simply, “I am He of whom you are in search” (cf. 4:26, 9:9). The reading of B ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς must carry this meaning.

6. The words which follow, “they retired and fell to the ground,” then, imply no more than that the men who came to make the arrest (some of whom at least did not previously know Jesus even by sight) were so overcome by His moral ascendancy that they recoiled in fear. (For the Johannine ὡς οὖν, see on 4:40.) On a previous occasion (7:44), when some wished to arrest Him, they had faltered and failed to do so. It may have been a similar shrinking which caused some now to recoil from their distasteful task, and in the confusion they, or some of the crowd, stumbled and fell. Indeed, ἔπεσαν χαμαί might be taken figuratively, as expressing discomfiture only. Thus in Ps. 27:2, Isa. 8:15, Jer. 46:6, “stumbled and fell” means no more than that enemies were “overthrown”; and ἔπεσαν χαμαί might be rendered in colloquial English “were floored.”

There is no hint in the Synoptists of any hesitancy on the part of those sent to make the arrest. The phrases ἀπῆλθαν εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω (cf. 6:66) and ἔπεσαν χαμαί (χαμαί is only found again in the N.T. at 9:6) are peculiar to Jn. And it has been suggested (e.g. by W. Bauer) that Jn. means us to understand that ἐγώ εἰμι, as used by Jesus on this occasion, is the equivalent of the mysterious אֲנִי־הוּא, I (am) He, which is the self- designation of Yahweh in the prophetical books (cf. 8:58, 13:19 above, and Introd., pp. cxxvii ff.); and that so awful a claim overwhelmed with terror those who heard it made (cf. Dan. 10:9, Rev. 1:17). But this is too subtle a rendering of the Johannine narrative of the arrest. Cf. Rev. 1:17.

In the Gospel of Peter, § 5, where the darkness at the Crucifixion is described, we have περιήρχοντο δὲ πολλοὶ μετὰ λύχνων, νομίζοντες ὅτι νῦξ ἐστιν. [τινὲς δὲ] ἐπέσαντο. This seems to be a reminiscence of Jn. 18:3, 6; cf. also Acta Thomœ, § 157.

7. The question and answer are repeated: “Whom seek ye?… Jesus the Nazarene.” This time, those who had come to arrest Him knew to whom they were speaking, but they were so much overawed that they could only repeat what they had said before.

8. The reply is stern and authoritative. He repeats ἐγώ εἰμι (see on v. 5).

εἰ οὖν ἐμὲ ζητ. κτλ. “If, then, it is I (emphatic) whom you seek, let these (sc. the Eleven) go their way,” or “go home,” for ὑπάγειν has a suggestion of this meaning (see on 7:33). His solicitude for His faithful disciples is characteristic of the Good Shepherd (cf. 10:12, and see on v. 19).

9. ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος κτλ. For the phrase ἵνα πληρ., introducing a saying of Jesus, see Introd., p. cxliii f. Another example is in v. 32. For Jn., the words of Jesus were possessed of authority, and inspired, like the language of the O.T., by foreknowledge of future events. The λόγος, or “saying” (see on 2:22), to which reference is here made is that of 17:12 loosely quoted. ὅτι is recitantis, but it does not introduce the exact words previously ascribed to Jesus.

The comment of Jn. (ἵνα πλ. ὁ λόγος κτλ.) would seem to limit the application of “I lost none of those whom thou gavest me” to the fact that the disciples were let go free when Jesus was arrested. Some at least of Jn.’s explanations of the words of Jesus are of doubtful accuracy (see on 2:19, 21); but it is hard to believe that he could have missed here the larger and more spiritual meaning of 17:12, which is already indicated at 6:39, 10:28.

οὓς δέδωκάς μοι, οὐκ ἀπώλεσα ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐδένα. The close verbal parallel in 2 Esd. 2:26 is interesting: “servos quos tibi dedi, nemo ex eis interiet, ego enim eos requiram de numero tuo,” words which are addressed by God to the personified nation. Chapters 1. and 2. of 2 Esdras are Christian, and probably belong to the second century. The passage quoted above may be a reminiscence of Jn. 18:3 or Jn. 17:12 or Jn. 6:37. See on 3:31 above for other parallels between 2 Esdras and Jn.

10. The incident of one of the Twelve attacking the high priest’s slave is in all the Gospels (Mk. 14:47, Mt. 26:51, Lk. 22:50), although the names, Peter and Malchus, are given by Jn. only.

It appears from Lk. 22:38, that the apostles had two swords or knives in their possession; and Lk. also tells that, when they understood that the salutation of Judas was the signal for the arrest of Jesus, they exclaimed, “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” It would seem that Peter, always hasty and impulsive, struck a blow without waiting for permission from Jesus. He had been forward in declaring that he would give his life for his Master, if there was need (13:37). He did not generally carry a sword; ἔχων μάχαιραν implies that he happened to have one with him at the time, presumably because he and others had learnt from what Jesus had said previously that their Master was in danger. It was unlawful to carry arms on a feast-day, and—although at such a crisis, an eager disciple like Peter would probably have had no scruple in breaking the law if the safety of his Master was at stake—the fact that two of the company had knives with them earlier in the evening tends to show that the Last Supper was not the Passover, and that the Johannine rather than the Synoptic tradition of the day of the Crucifixion is to be followed (see Introd., p. cvi f.).

Peter drew (see on 6:44 for ἑλκύειν) the sword, καὶ ἔπαισεν τὸν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως δοῦλον, “and struck the high priest’s slave.” This man was one of the crowd which had gathered; he was not one of the Temple guard (ὑπηρέτας, v. 3). There was something of a scuffle, and Peter hit out.

καὶ ἀπέκοψεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτάριον τὸ δεξιόν, “and cut off his right ear,” the blow missing the slave’s head, as he swerved to his left to avoid it. That it was the right ear is a detail only found in Lk. and Jn. ὠτάριον, the true reading here (א B C*L W), is the word used by Mk. (14:47); ὠτίον, of the rec. text (A C³D N Θ), is the word in Mt. 26:51 and in Lk. 22:51.

We have here, without doubt, a tradition of an historical incident. If it be asked why Peter was not immediately arrested by the Temple guard or the soldiers who were standing by, the answer may be that it was not observed in the scuffle who had dealt the blow. The earlier Gospels do not disclose Peter’s name, although by the time that Jn. wrote, there would be no risk in giving it. Again, an injury to a slave would not excite much interest; had Peter struck one of the officials, it would have been a different matter. Lk. tells, indeed, that Jesus healed the wound (Lk. 22:51), apparently suggesting that the ear had not been wholly severed from the man’s head.

ἦν δὲ ὄνομα τῷ δούλῳ Μάλχος. Here, again, is a detail that comes from first-hand knowledge. No evangelist has it except Jn. The name Malchus is found five times in Josephus, and probably goes back to the root מלך or “king.” Cf. Neh. 10:4.

11. Jesus forbids the use of arms in resisting His arrest. The Synoptists represent Him as expostulating against it, and especially against the violent way in which it was effected (Mk. 14:48, Mt. 26:55, Lk. 22:52); but in Jn.’s narrative there is none of this. He moves voluntarily towards the predestined end.

Βάλε τὴν μάχαιραν εἰς τὴν θήκην, “put back the sword into the sheath.” Mt., alone of the Synoptists, tells of this saying, which he gives in a more diffuse form: ἀπόστρεψόν σου τὴν μάχαιραν εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς· πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ἀπολοῦνται (Mt. 26:52), the latter clause suggesting the hand of an editor. According to Jn., Jesus gave no reason for the quiet command, “Put up your sword.” See on v. 36 below.

After μάχαιραν the rec. adds σου (from Mt. 26:52), but om. א A B C D L N W Θ.

τὸ ποτήριον ὃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατήρ, οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτό; This recalls the prayer of Jesus at Gethsemane, as recorded by the Synoptists (Mk. 14:36, Mt. 26:39, Lk. 22:42). See on v. 1 above and on 12:27.

οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτό is probably to be taken as an interrogative. Abbott, however (Diat. 934 f, 2232), prefers to take it as an exclamation, “I am, of course, not to drink it!” [sc. according to your desire], comparing οὐ μὴ πίω of Mk. 14:25, Mt. 26:29, Lk. 22:18. See on 6:37.

12. Jn. does not record explicitly that His disciples fled in fear after Jesus had been arrested (Mk. 14:50, Mt. 26:56), although he has told that Jesus earlier in the night had predicted that they would abandon Him (16:32). Jn. implies, however (see on v. 15), that Jesus was abandoned at this point by His friends.

The arrest was effected by the Roman soldiers (see on v. 3 for σπεῖρα), with their commanding officer (cf. Acts 21:31 for χιλίαρχος), acting in co-operation with the Temple police (οἱ ὑπηρέται τῶν Ἰουδαίων). συνλαμβάνειν does not occur again in Jn., but it is the verb used by the Synoptists in this context.

καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτόν. That was a matter of course; probably His hands were fastened behind His back. The Synoptists do not mention this detail until a later point in the narrative (Mk. 15:1, Mt. 27:1; cf. v. 24). It was a patristic fancy that the binding of Jesus was foreshadowed in the binding of Isaac at the altar (Gen. 22:9); see on 19:17 below.

πρὸς Ἄνναν πρῶτον. Annas was not, at this time, the high priest, but he had held the office before and was a personage of such influence that he was often called “high priest” in a loose way (cf. Lk. 3:2, Acts 4:6, and see on 7:32), although that great office was now held by his son-in-law Caiaphas (see on 11:49 above).¹ It was to his house that Jesus was brought after His arrest, and there an informal and extra-judicial questioning of Him went on during the night hours (Mk. 14:53f., Mt. 26:57). Mk. does not give any name: he only says, “they led Jesus away to the high priest”; but Mt. inserts the name Caiaphas at this point, in which he seems to have been mistaken. Caiaphas presided at the formal meeting of the Sanhedrim (Mk. 15:1, Mt. 27:1, Lk. 22:66, Jn. 18:24), held the next morning as early as possible, when the sentence of death, already agreed on (Mk. 14:64), was ratified, and submitted to Pilate, who alone had authority to order it to be carried out.

It was during the night, at the house of Annas (not the house of Caiaphas, or the formal place of meeting for the Sanhedrim, which could legally meet only by day), that the evidence, such as it was, was prepared, and that the Prisoner was treated with insult and contumely. Such irregular proceedings would not have been countenanced at a formal meeting of the Sanhedrim, but they were winked at in the courtyard of Annas’ private house, which was the scene of Peter’s denial and the reproachful look which Jesus bestowed on him (Lk. 22:61). Probably some of the evidence as to blasphemy was repeated in due form at the official sitting of the Sanhedrim, at which Luke (who says nothing of the preliminary hearing before Annas) states that Jesus admitted His claim to be Messiah (Lk. 22:70), in similar words to those which Mk. 14:62, Mt. 26:64 ascribe to Him at the earlier cross-examination.

Such seems to have been the course of events on the night of the arrest and the next morning; but it is not possible to reconcile precisely all the evangelical accounts.¹ The narrative of Jn. seems at certain points (vv. 13, 19–23, 26) to be based on first-hand knowledge, to which the other evangelists had not access.

ἦν γὰρ πενθερὸς τοῦ Καϊάφα. This piece of information is not given in the other Gospels, nor does the word πενθερός occur again in the N.T.

ὃς ἦν ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου. This is repeated from 11:49, 51. Caiaphas was the official high priest, and that a man of his principles should have held the position in that fateful year had grave and awful consequences. See on 11:49.

The Sinai Syriac places v. 24 at this point after v. 13. The marginal texts of the Jerusalem and Philoxenian Syriac also have here “Annas sent Jesus (bound) to Caiaphas,” although v. 24 is retained in its traditional place. Similarly the cursive 225 and Cyril Alex. add after πρῶτον, ἀπέστειλεν οὖν αὐτὸν ὁ Ἄννας δεδεμένον πρὸς Καϊάφαν τὸν ἀρχιερέα.

These additions or transpositions are due probably to a desire to bring Jn.’s narrative of the examinations of Jesus by the Jewish authorities into line with the narrative of the Synoptists, who say nothing of the part played by Annas. If v. 24 is moved to a point between v. 13 and v. 14, then all that happens takes place in the house of Caiaphas (as is explicitly said by Mt.), and Annas really does nothing, although Jesus in the Johannine narrative is brought to his house in the first instance.

But, if this were the original position of the words “Annas sent Him bound unto the high priest,” it is difficult to find a reason for their being moved by a scribe to their traditional place, after v. 23. See, further, Introd., p. xxvii.

At 11:50 we had συμφέρει … ἵνα εἷς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ, but here συμφέρει ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἀποθανεῖν, a more correct constr.

15. ἠκολούθει, a descriptive impf. The Synoptists say that Peter was following (ἀπὸ μακρόθεν) at a safe distance (Mk. 14:54, Mt. 26:58, Lk. 22:54), but they do not mention a companion.

Σίμων Πέτρος. Jn. likes to use the double name (see on 1:42) when Peter has been absent from the picture for some little time, but he generally relapses into the simple “Peter” as the story proceeds; see, e.g., 13:24, 36, 18:10, 11, 20:2, 3, 4, 21:3, 7, 15, 17, 20, 21. Jn. never gives the short title “Peter” to this apostle at the beginning of an incident in which he is concerned. In the present passage we have Simon Peter (v. 15), followed by Peter (vv. 16, 17, 18); then there is an interval, and so when the courtyard scene is resumed, we have Simon Peter again (v. 25), followed by Peter (vv. 26, 27).

καὶ ἄλλος μαθητής. So א*A B D^suppW. The rec. has ὁ ἄλλος (from v. 16) with א^cbC L NO Γ Δ Θ, thus identifying Peter’s companion here with “the Beloved Disciple.”

This “other disciple” was “known to the high priest,” and so was admitted into the courtyard or αὐλή of the house where Jesus had been brought. He was sufficiently well known to the portress, at any rate, to persuade her to admit his companion. It does not follow that he was a personal friend of Annas or of Caiaphas, or of the same social class, although this is possible. As Sanday put it: “The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants’ hall.”¹ The word γνωστός as applied to persons is uncommon, as Abbott points out (Diat. x. ii. p. 351 f.), but it is to press it too far to interpret it here as meaning “a familiar friend,” with an allusion to Ps. 55:13. Abbott adopts the curious view that the “other disciple” was Judas Iscariot, whose face would have been familiar to the portress, because of his previous visit or visits to the high priest in pursuance of his scheme of betrayal. But that Judas should wish to introduce Peter, or that Peter would have tolerated any advances from him or accepted his good offices, is difficult to believe.

The view most generally taken² as to the personality of this ἄλλος μαθητής is that he was John the Beloved Disciple, whose reminiscences are behind the Gospel, and whose identity is veiled in some degree (see on 13:23; and cf. 1:27, 21:24). This agrees with the close association elsewhere of Peter and John (see Introd., p. xxxvi). Indeed, John the son of Zebedee had priestly connexions. His mother was Salome, the sister of the Virgin Mary (see pp. 73, 84 f., and note on 19:35); and Mary was a kinswoman (συγγενίς, Lk. 1:36) of Elisabeth, who was “of the daughters of Aaron” (Lk. 1:5). Hence John was connected with a priestly family on his mother’s side, and there is no improbability in his being “known to the high priest.”³

But the available evidence does not permit us securely to identify the ἄλλος μαθητής, as Augustine saw (Tract. cxiii. 2), saying that it is not plain who he was. This unnamed disciple was probably some one of influence and social importance; if we were to guess, the names of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa suggest themselves at once. There were disciples outside the circle of the Twelve, some of them men of rank, members of the Sanhedrim itself (see 12:42); and it is quite likely that Peter was known, by sight at least, to one of these who had attended at the house of Annas.¹ It is probable that it is to this unnamed disciple (whether John or another) that the details given in vv. 19–23 about the private examination of Jesus at night by the high priest, and also perhaps about the private examination before Pilate (vv. 33 f.), are ultimately due. There are also traces of first-hand information in the statements that “it was cold” (v. 18), and that a kinsman of the slave Malchus identified Peter (v. 26).

εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν κτλ., “into the courtyard.” All the evangelists represent this courtyard as the scene of Peter’s denial. He was not admitted even so far, until his unnamed friend intervened, but was standing outside at the door. See on 10:1 for αὐλή and θύρα. The examination of Jesus was not conducted in the outer court where all the servants were, but in a chamber of the house of Annas. Mk. implies that this chamber was not on the ground floor, as he says that Peter was κάτω ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ, “below, in the court” (Mk. 14:66).

Delff identified the ἄλλος μαθητής of v. 15 with the Beloved Disciple, whom he distinguished from John the son of Zebedee. In connexion with the remark that he was “known to the high priest,” Delff cited the statement of Polycrates (see Introd., p. l) that the Beloved Disciple wore the priestly frontlet; and inferred that he belonged to an aristocratic priestly family in Jerusalem, it being thus easy for him to obtain access to the high priest’s house.² We have already treated the problem of the ἄλλος μαθητής.

But a larger question is raised by the words of Polycrates, to which some reference may be made at this point. Polycrates says of the Beloved Disciple ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκώς, an observation difficult to explain. This πέταλον was a golden plate attached in front to the turban or mitre of Aaron (Ex. 28:36f., 29:6, 39:30f., Lev. 8:9), and in later times was part of the official dress of the high priest (cf. Josephus, Antt. III. vii. 6).¹

Of James the Just, Epiphanius says: τὸ πέταλον ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐξῆν αὐτῷ φορεῖν (Hær. xxix. 4). He adds that his authority was the ὑπομνηματισμοί of former writers of repute; and Lawlor³ has shown that he is alluding to the ὑπομνήματα of Hegesippus. Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius (H.E. ii. 23), said that to James alone was it allowed to enter εἰς τὰ ἅγια of the Temple, which he used to frequent in prayer for the people, and that his custom was to wear not woollen but linen garments.⁴ Epiphanius may be reproducing other words of Hegesippus when he tells (Hær. xxix. 4) that James exercised the priestly office according to the old priesthood (ἱερατεύσαντα κατὰ τὴν παλαίαν ἱερωσύνην); but he is probably in error when he says that James alone was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, as the high priest did, διὰ τὸ Ναζωραῖον αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ μεμίχθαι τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ (Hær. lxxviii. 13). He adds explicitly, ὁ Ἰάκωβος διέφερε τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ, and πέταλον ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐφόρεσε.

Of Mark, Valois quoted a legend as a note on Eus. H.E. v. 24, as follows: “beatum Marcum iuxta ritum carnalis sacrificii pontificalis apicis petalum in populo gestasse Iudaeorum … ex quo manifeste datur intelligi de stirpe eum Leuitica, imo pontificis Aaron sacrae successionis originem habuisse.”⁵ Mark was probably of Levite race (compare Acts 4:36 with Col. 4:10), and the Vulgate Preface to his Gospel speaks of him as “sacerdotium in Israhel agens,”⁶ so that it is quite possible that he was one of the Jewish priests who accepted Christ (Acts 6:7; cf. Acts 21:20).

The language of Polycrates, then, about John ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκώς is almost identical with what is told about James and Mark. If the πέταλον were worn by the high priest only on great occasions, it is impossible to suppose that John, James, or Mark ever wore it. But if it was (even occasionally) worn by the ordinary Jewish priest in N.T. times, Mark may have worn it. And if John and James were eligible for the priesthood, they too might have had the privilege. But while James and John were certainly akin to the priestly race on their mother’s side, the argument of Epiphanius to prove that James also was “mingled with the priesthood” by blood is not convincing. Yet we know so little of the insistence upon hereditary qualifications for the Jewish priesthood in the first century, that it is not easy to reject the explicit statements made about John and James as well as about Mark.¹

Jerome, when discussing the statement of Polycrates about John, understands ἱερεύς to mean a Christian priest, and translates: “qui supra pectus domini recubuit, et pontifex eius fuit, auream laminam in fronte portans” (de script. eccl. 45). This explanation will not apply to the parallel traditions about James and Mark, upon the Jewish character of whose priesthood stress is laid. It is conceivable (although improbable) that the Beloved Disciple might have been allowed by his Christian brethren to wear the insignia of a Jewish priest at Ephesus, where he was so greatly venerated. But neither James nor Mark would ever have been allowed such a distinction as Christian priests at Jerusalem while the Temple was yet standing. Further, it would be strange that Polycrates should call John a Christian ἱερεύς, while studiously avoiding in his case the title ἐπίσκοπος, which he gives to others of repute.² And, finally, that the mitre or πέταλον should have been used as an ornament of Christian bishops in the first century, but never heard of again until three centuries later at least, is highly improbable.

Others interpret the wearing of the πέταλον by John and the others as metaphorical only.³ The dress of the high priest is used in Rev. 2:17 as the symbol of the investment of the true Christian with the sacerdotal character; cf. Ex. 28:31, 36 with the “white stone” and the “new name” of Rev. 2:17. This idea is worked out in detail by Origen (in Lev. Hom. vi.), who treats the πέταλον as symbolic of the knowledge of divine things by all baptized persons; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 6. If we pursue this line of thought, we recall that engraved on the πέταλον were the words “Holy to Yahweh,” ἁγίασμα κυρίου (Ex. 28:36), and the command to Moses was ἁγιάσεις αὐτούς, ἵνα ἱερατεύωσίν μοι (Ex. 28:41). The πέταλον, in short, was the symbol of consecration, which was the topic of Christ’s intercession for His apostles (Jn. 17:2). John, James,¹ and Mark were all ἡγιασμένοι (Jn. 17:19); and the tradition of wearing the πέταλον in their case might have grown out of a metaphorical statement as to their personal holiness. But this view does not explain why the πέταλον symbol should have been used only of John, James, and Mark among the saints of the apostolic age.

We are inclined to accept the tradition that James, John, and Mark literally wore the πέταλον, at least occasionally, in virtue of their service as Jewish priests. It is to be remembered that James, John, and Peter were the “pillars” of the Jerusalem Church (Gal. 2:9); they were the heads of the conservative or Judaising party as contrasted with Paul. Of these, Peter was suspect by the more rigid Jews (Acts 11:3). But his disciple Mark was under no such suspicion, for he had actually separated himself from Paul because of the latter’s liberal policy (Acts 13:13, 15:37). John had, indeed, incurred the hostility of the Temple authorities in early days (Acts 4:3, 13); but there is no later indication of opposition to him by them, or any trace of distrust of him by his fellow-disciples. James was thoroughly respected by all. James, John, and Mark were, then, the three Christian leaders who were most fully trusted by the conservatives at Jerusalem.² While whole-hearted disciples of Jesus, they were Jews who were understood to have pride in their Jewish heritage. Provided that they were qualified for the priesthood, there would be nothing surprising in their occasional discharge of priestly offices; for by the first disciples the Christian faith was not regarded as inconsistent with Judaism. Thus the tradition that they had been privileged to wear the priestly πέταλον is less improbable in their case than it would be in that of any other early leader of the Church of whom we have information.

16. For ἄλλος, fam. 13 have ἐκεῖνος, ille occurs in some O.L. codices.

καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θυρωρῷ, καὶ εἰσήγαγεν τὸν Πέτρον, i.e., apparently, the friend spoke to the portress and brought Peter in; but the rendering “and she brought Peter in” is defensible.

The θυρωρός was a maid-servant (παιδίσκη), as at Acts 12:13 and 2 Sam. 4:6 (LXX), a custom which Moulton-Milligan illustrate from papyri.

17. μὴ καὶ σὺ ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν κτλ. The form of the question μὴ καὶ … shows that the portress expected a negative answer: “You are not another of His disciples, are you?” See on 6:67; and cf. v. 25. That is, she knew that the person who had already been admitted as γνωστὸς τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ was a disciple of Jesus, although not necessarily of the inner circle.

τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τούτου, “of this person,” a contemptuous way of speaking.

According to the Johannine account, the first challenge to Peter and his first denial of his Master occurred as he was being admitted to the courtyard. The Synoptists put it later, after he had been admitted and was warming himself at the fire, when he was recognised by a slave girl who saw his face lit up by the flames (Lk. 22:56). Mk. says that after Peter repudiated any knowledge of Jesus he went outside into the vestibule or porch (προαύλιον, Mk. 14:68; cf. εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα, Mt. 26:71), and that the second interrogation of him (this time apparently by the maid who was portress) took place there.

18. The soldiers had now gone back to barracks, the Temple police (ὑπηρέται) being sufficient guard. The policemen and the slaves lit a fire in the courtyard, as it was a cold night. ὅτι ψῦχος ἦν is a touch peculiar to Jn., and suggests that the story has come from one who was present, and who shivers as he recalls how cold it was in the open court. Jerusalem is 2400 feet above sea-level, and it is chilly at midnight in spring-time.¹

ἀνθρακιά occurs again in the N.T. only at 21:9 (cf. Ecclus. 11:32, 4 Macc. 9:20): it means “a heap of charcoal,” probably burnt in a brazier. True coal was not known in Palestine until the nineteenth century. Lk. mentions the lighting of a fire, using the words ἁψάντων πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ τῆς αὐλῆς, and says that they were all sitting round it. Mk. says that Peter was warming himself in the light (θερμαινόμενος πρὸς τὸ φῶς, Mk. 14:54), i.e. leaning towards the dim flame of the fire. Mt. does not say anything about a fire in the courtyard.

For ἀνθρακιὰν πεποιηκότες the Vulgate has only ad prunas, several O.L. codices giving ad carbones. This is a rendering which, as Wordsworth-White point out, seems to represent a reading πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρακιάν, for which there is no Greek authority extant.

ὁ Πέτρος μετʼ αὐτῶν. So א B C L W, the rec. giving the order of words as μετʼ αὐτῶν ὁ Πέτρ. Θ omits Πέτρος. It was necessary for Peter to mingle with the slaves and the police in the courtyard; to have kept to himself would have made him an object of suspicion. The Synoptists represent him as sitting near the fire, with the others; Jn. alone says that he was standing, ἑστώς.

Jn. follows Mk. (14:54, 67) in telling that Peter was warming himself (θερμαινόμενος); and, like Mk., he tells it twice (see v. 25). Jn.’s narrative of Peter’s denials is interrupted by an account of the examination of Jesus which was taking place in the house of Annas (vv. 19–23). After the examination has been described, the story of Peter is resumed. Evidently it was while he was waiting in the outer court that he denied his Master for the second and third times (vv. 25–27).¹ This is consistent with Mk.’s order of events.

Examination of Jesus Before Annas (vv. 19–23); He is Sent on to Caiaphas (v. 24)

19. ὁ … ἀρχιερεύς. The “high priest” who conducted the informal examination at the house of Annas was most probably Annas himself (see v. 24). Caiaphas, however, may have been present, and it is possible that he was the ἀρχιερεύς of v. 19 and v. 22. But the real leader was Annas (see on 11:49), and it was probably by his orders that Jesus was brought to his house in the first instance (see on v. 13). Jn. does not tell, as the Synoptists do, of the cross-examination by which the hostile priests and scribes tried to make Jesus incriminate Himself, when they found it difficult to get legal evidence as to His alleged blasphemy about the destruction of the Temple (Mk. 14:55f., Mt. 26:59f.). The episode of the Cleansing of the Temple, and the words “Destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in three days,” have been given by Jn. in another context (2:13–19, where see note). Jn. merely says here that the high priest questioned Jesus about His disciples, probably as to who they were and as to their reasons for attaching themselves to Him, and about His doctrine (διδαχή, cf. 7:16). This latter inquiry would cover everything. But the details given here of the reply of Jesus to the high priest are found only in Jn. (See also on v. 32.)

20. ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῳ Ἰησοῦς. See on 1:29 for the omission of ὁ before Ἰησοῦς.

Jesus, in His reply, ignores the question as to His disciples and does not mention them. As to His teaching, He declares that it was always available for, and open to, every one, and that there was nothing secret about it. The reply of Socrates to his judges has often been quoted as a parallel: “If any one says that he has ever learnt or heard anything from me in private, which all others could not have heard, know ye that he does not speak the truth” (Plato, Apol. 33 B).

ἐγὼ παρρησίᾳ λελάληκα (not ἐλάλησα, as the rec. text has it) τῷ κόσμῳ, “I have spoken openly to the world,” i.e. to all and sundry. ἐγώ is emphatic: it was His teaching that was challenged. For παρρησίᾳ see on 7:4, and for κόσμος see on 1:9; cf. ταῦτα λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον (8:26), where, however, the meaning is slightly different. The Jews had said of Him παρρησίᾳ λαλεῖ (7:26); and when they had challenged Him on another occasion to speak plainly (εἰπὲ ἡμῖν παρρησίᾳ, 10:24) He had done so, with such openness that they had sought to arrest Him (10:39). When His own disciples had found difficulty in understanding His mysterious teaching about His approaching departure, He proceeded to make it quite plain (16:25, 29).

ἐγὼ πάντοτε ἐδίδαξα ἐν συναγωγῇ (the true text has no article before συναγωγῇ) καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, “I always taught in synagogue and in the temple”; i.e. it was His custom to teach in these public places, not that He never gave any private teaching to an inquirer like Nicodemus (3:2). The discourse about the Bread of Life was given in the synagogue at Capernaum, according to the Johannine narrative (6:59), and the Synoptists frequently speak of His practice of teaching in the synagogues of Galilee. Jn. tells of His teaching in the Temple several times (2:19, 7:14, 28, 8:20, 10:23). Cf. Mk. 14:49, καθʼ ἡμέραν ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων. The fact of His public teaching was notorious. It had been given ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, ὅπου πάντες (not πάντοτε with the rec. text) οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι συνέρχονται, “where all the Jews come together.”

καὶ ἐν κρυπτῷ ἐλάλησα οὐδέν. This is like the utterance of Messiah at Isa. 48:16, οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἐν κρυφῇ λελάληκα (cf. Isa. 45:19). But we have had the contrast between ἐν κρυπτῷ and ἐν παρρησίᾳ before (see 7:4); and it is not necessary to suppose that there is here a veiled allusion to the Isaiah passage, although it is possible.

See on 3:11 for Jn.’s use of λαλεῖν as signifying frank and unreserved speech. It is noteworthy that the strongest repudiation in the Gospels of cryptic or esoteric teaching in the words of Jesus is found in Jn.

21. For ἐρωτᾷς, ἐρώτησον, the rec., with some lesser uncials, has the stronger ἐπερωτᾷς, ἐπερώτησον (cf. v. 7).

τί με ἐρωτᾷς; It was a recognised principle of law that a man’s evidence about himself was suspect. See on 5:31.

τί ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς … ἃ εἶπον ἐγώ. The two verbs have the same meaning (see on 3:11).

22. εἷς παρεστηκὼς τῶν ὑπηρετῶν. So א*B W a ff, but A C²D^suppN Γ Δ Θ syrr. have the order εἷς τῶν ὑπηρ. παρεστ. For the constr. εἷς τῶν … cf. 12:4, 19:34.

This ὑπηρέτης was one of the Temple policemen, who have been mentioned vv. 3, 12 as having taken part in the arrest of Jesus; he was standing by to guard the prisoner.

ῥάπισμα is also used by Mk. (14:65) in the same context, and is applied again, 19:3, to the insults offered to Jesus by the Roman soldiers. As Field has shown (in loc.), it means a slap on the cheek, given with the open hand by way of insulting rebuke rather than with the intention of inflicting bodily injury. Cf. Isa. 50:6, τὸν νῶτόν μου ἔδωκα εἰς μάστιγας, τὰς δὲ σιαγόνας μου εἰς ῥαπίσματα. ῥαπίζειν was used by the older Greek writers for ῥαβδίζειν, “to strike with a stick,” but it came to be reserved for “to slap.” Cf. Hos. 11:4, Mt. 5:39, 26:67. Abbott (Diat. 493) cites 1 Esd. 4:30, where one of the king’s favourite women slaps him playfully.

Οὕτως ἀποκρίνῃ τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ; “Answerest Thou the high priest,” i.e. probably Annas, “so unbecomingly?”

It is obvious that conduct of this kind on the part of an underling would not have been permitted at a formal judicial sitting of the Sanhedrim.

23. ἀπεκρ. αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς. See on 1:29 for the omission of ὁ before Ἰης.

εἰ δὲ καλῶς, τί με δέρεις; δέρειν, “to beat,” is the word used in the same context at Lk. 22:63. It is used of an insulting blow in the face, as here, at 2 Cor. 11:20.

This dignified reply shows that the precept of Mt. 5:39 is not always to be obeyed in the letter.

24. ἀπέστειλεν cannot be treated as a pluperfect, as the A. V. treats it: “had sent,” in order to escape the difficulties that arise if Caiaphas is supposed to have been the high priest of vv. 19, 23 (see on v. 13). ἀπέστειλεν οὖν κτλ., means, “So Annas sent Him to Caiaphas,” sc. when his preliminary inquiry was over. οὖν is read by B C*L N WΘ and must be retained; א has δέ, and the rec. text omits any conjunctive particle, an omission which obscures the sense. See p. 37 f.

δεδεμένον. He had been unbound, no doubt, during the inquiry (cf. v. 12); but He was bound again, on being sent off to the official place of meeting of the Sanhedrim, where Caiaphas would preside, in order to ratify the sentence that had already been informally arranged. This official hall was not the palace of the high priest, but was situated on the western side of the Temple mount.¹

25. The courtyard scene is now taken up again from v. 18, where see note. We had there ὁ Πέτρος ἑστὼς καὶ θερμαινόμενος, and the phrase is repeated to bring us back to what has been said before, but with the characteristic substitution of Σίμων Πέτρος for ὁ Πέτρος of v. 18, as the apostle has been out of the narrative for some paragraphs (see on v. 15 above).

That there was some interval between the first denial of Peter and the third is apparent from the Synoptists, although they do not agree in small details. Mk. and Mt. suggest that the second interrogation of Peter followed hard upon the first, but this is told explicitly only by Lk. (μετὰ βραχύ, Lk. 22:58). Then Mk. 14:70 and Mt. 26:73 say that the third interrogation was μετὰ μικρόν after the second, but Lk. allows an hour to elapse (διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς, Lk. 22:59). Jn. brings the second denial nearer to the third than Lk. does; but that there was more than an hour’s interval between the first denial and the third, as Lk. records, is quite in agreement with the Johannine account.

Μὴ καὶ σύ ἐκ τῶν μαθ. αὐτ. κτλ. The question and answer are almost the same as those of v. 17; and the question is again expressed as if a negative answer were expected (see on v. 17). This is a point peculiar to Jn.’s narrative; he describes the first two interrogatories as put in a form which almost suggested that Peter should say “No!” In this (see also on v. 27), Jn. gives a less severe account of Peter’s lapse from courage and faithfulness than the Synoptists do.

26. The slaves of the high priest have been mentioned as present in the courtyard (v 18). One of them is here described as a kinsman of Malchus (v. 10), a remark which has been thought to imply some acquaintance with the high priest’s household (see on v. 16). The reason for the slave’s insistent identification, viz. that he had seen Peter with Jesus at Gethsemane, is not found elsewhere; the Synoptists telling that Peter was suspected because of his Galilæan accent. “Did not I see thee in the garden with Him?” ἐγώ is emphatic, “I, with my own eyes.” But the slave apparently was not able to satisfy the bystanders that he was right, for Peter’s denial was accepted. The temptation to say “No” was even greater this time than before, for the mention of the blow struck at Malchus suggests that Malchus’ kinsman suspected Peter of having been the assailant. Had Peter been arrested on this count, he would have been dealt with very severely. To be a “disciple” of Jesus was not a legal offence, although the confession of it might lead to trouble; but to have drawn a weapon and assaulted one of the high priest’s household was another matter.

27. πάλιν οὖν ἠρνήσατο. No words are given; only the fact of the denial is recorded. This is in strong contrast to the denial with curses and oaths which is described by Mk. 14:71 (followed by Mt. 26:74, but not by Lk.).

According to the Lucan narrative, at this point, “the Lord turned and looked upon Peter” (Lk. 22:61). Accordingly, we must suppose Jesus to have come down from the chamber where He had been informally examined, and to have been passing through the courtyard on His way to Caiaphas for formal trial and sentence, when Peter again denied his discipleship, and was overheard by his Master. Jn. hurries over this scene of painful memories.

εὐθέως ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν, “immediately a cock crew.” Lk. 22:60 has παραχρῆμα, but Mt. 26:74 has εὐθέως as here. In Jn. εὐθέως always connotes immediate consecutiveness (see on 5:9).

All the evangelists speak of the actual crowing of a cock (Mk. speaks of two crowings, 14:68, 72) within the precincts of the palace, and find in it the literal fulfilment of the prediction made by Jesus (13:38). Salmon¹ held that this prediction “meant no more than that Peter should deny Him thrice before the hour of cockcrow, viz. that hour of early morning which was technically known as ἡ ἀλεκτοροφωνία” (cf. Mk. 13:35). C. H. Mayo made a further suggestion; viz. that the signal heard by Peter was “the gallicinium, the signal given on the buccina at the close of the third night watch, and the change of guard.”² This is probably what happened. “Before a cock shall crow” (13:38) would be a vague note of time, for cocks are apt to crow at uncertain hours during the night. But “before the ἀλεκτοροφωνία” is precise; and the hour of ἀλεκτοροφωνία was made public by a military signal.

On this interpretation, the word πρωΐ in v. 28 is peculiarly appropriate, for, according to Roman reckoning, the four watches of the night were ὀψέ, μεσονύκτιον, ἀλεκτοροφωνία, and πρωΐ. As soon as the signal had sounded at the close of ἀλεκτοροφωνία, it would be πρωΐ.

Jn. says nothing about Peter’s bitter tears of repentance for his failure. Every one knew, when the Fourth Gospel was written, that Peter had repented, and his return to his Master’s favour is specially recorded in the Appendix (21:15). It is quite in the manner of Jn. to omit something which no Christian needed to be told.

28. ἄγουσιν οὖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Καϊάφα κτλ. We have in v. 24 the statement that Jesus was “sent to Caiaphas,” i.e. to the formal meeting of the Sanhedrim, not necessarily or probably held in the house of Caiaphas, over which Caiaphas would preside. Nothing is told here of the proceedings (see on v. 13, and cf. Mk. 15:1, Mt. 27:1), which were only formal, as the decision had been already reached at the irregular meeting in the house of Annas. But as the Sanhedrim could not execute the sentence of death (see v. 31) without the sanction of the Roman authorities, they had now to bring Jesus before Pilate, that he might give the necessary orders.

ἀπὸ τοῦ Καϊάφα need not mean “from the house of Caiaphas” (cf. Mk. 5:35, Acts 16:40), but more naturally means “from Caiaphas,” i.e. from the ecclesiastical court over which he presided. Some O.L. codices, e.g. e ff₂ g, etc., have ad Caiphan, a reading due to a misunderstanding of the sequence of events. See Introd., pp. xxvi–xxviii.

εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον. πραιτώριον signified a prætor’s or general’s quarters in a camp, and the word came to be used of the official residence of a governor (cf. τὸ πραιτώριον of Herod at Cæsarea, Acts 23:35). It is not certain where the prœtorium at Jerusalem, that is, Pilate’s house, was situated; but it is probably to be identified with Herod’s palace on the Hill of Zion in the western part of the upper city. Pilate was certainly lodged there on one occasion, for Philo (ad Caium, 38) reports that he hung up golden shields ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἱερόπολιν Ἡρώδου βασιλείοις. Further, Gessius Florus, who was procurator of Judæa about thirty-five years after Pilate, had at one time Herod’s palace as a residence, for Josephus says so in a passage so illustrative of the Passion narratives that it must be quoted: Φλῶρος δὲ τότε μὲν ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις αὐλίζεται, τῇ δʼ ὑστεραίᾳ βῆμα πρὸ αὐτῶν θέμενος καθέζεται, καὶ προσελθόντες οἵ τε ἀρχιερεῖς … παρέστησαν τῷ βήματι (Bell. Jud., ii. 14, 8). And in ii. 15, 5, Josephus explicitly calls the Procurator’s residence ἡ βασιλικὴ αὐλή; cf. Mk. 15:16, ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον. The mention of the βῆμα placed in full view of the high priests and the notables who came before Florus for judgment is noteworthy (cf. 19:13 below).

The other site suggested for the Prætorium is the Castle of Antonia, to the north of the Temple area, a fourth-century tradition placing Pilate’s house in this neighbourhood. That a large part of the garrison lived here is admitted, but that does not favour the idea that it was the Procurator’s residence. The course of the Via Dolorosa, as now shown, favours Antonia as the place of condemnation of Jesus; but there is no real authority behind this tradition.¹

πρωΐ, i.e. early in the morning of Friday, 14 Nisan (see on v. 27). Pilate must have known already that Roman soldiers had been sent to arrest Jesus the night before (v. 3), and he may have been warned to be ready at an early hour. The Jewish ecclesiastics who accompanied Jesus to the Prætorium did not enter ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν ἀλλὰ φάγωσιν τὸ πάσχα. See on 11:55. By going into a house from which the leaven had not been removed (Ex. 12:15), they would have been incapacitated from eating the Passover that evening. Ceremonial uncleanness in many cases lasted until sunset only (Lev. 11:24, 14:25, Num. 19:7, Deut. 23:11, etc.); but in the case of the Passover one who was unclean had to postpone its observance for a whole month (Num. 9:6, 11; cf. 2 Chron. 30:2, 3). This would have been inconvenient for the priests, and so they remained outside the house, Pilate having to come out to ask for the charge against Jesus, and to go back again into the Prætorium to question Him as to His defence.

For ἀλλὰ φάγωσιν (א A B C*D N W Θ), the rec. has ἀλλʼ ἵνα φάγωσι. For φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, which must mean the eating of the Passover meal itself, cf. Mk. 14:12, Mt. 26:17.

The scruple of the priests about entering the Prætorium is recorded by Jn. only. It is an instance of his “irony” (see on 1:45) that he does not comment upon it. These men were about to pollute their souls by unscrupulous testimony which was to bring Jesus to a horrible death, yet were unwilling to incur technical or ceremonial uncleanness while giving that testimony. There is no perversion so sinister as that of the human conscience.

29. The narrative of Pilate’s action in regard to Jesus is told with more fulness in Jn. than in the Synoptists (cf. Mk. 15:2f., Mt. 27:11f., Lk. 23:2f.).

ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ Πειλᾶτος ἔξω. As the Jews would not enter the Prætorium, Pilate came outside. This is the force of οὖν, “therefore” … The redundant ἐξῆλθεν … ἔξω is for the sake of explicitness “he came out, outside”; cf. 19:4, 5 and see on 4:30. The rec. text, with A C³D^supp om. ἔξω, but ins. א B C*L N W.

Abbott points out (Diat. 1969) that Jn.’s habit is to introduce a personal name without the article; but here we have ὁ Πειλᾶτος, as at Lk. 23:1.

Τίνα κατηγορίαν φέρετε κτλ. Pilate (see on v. 28) knew something of the case already; but it was necessary for him to be notified formally of the nature of the accusation brought against the prisoner.

The rec. has κατὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τούτου, with א^aA C D^suppL N W Θ, but א* Be om. κατά. Cf. Lk. 6:7, ἵνα εὕρωσιν κατηγορίαν αὐτοῦ.

30. The Jews are not sure of their case, and so they hesitate to specify the charge in explicit terms. They say, in effect, “That is our business; we would not have brought the prisoner for sentence, if we were not satisfied with His guilt.”

Εἰ μὴ ἦν οὗτος κακὸν ποιῶν κτλ. “If this person were not doing wrong, we should not have delivered Him up to thee.” For κακὸν ποιῶν (א^cB L W e), the rec., with A C³D^suppN Γ Δ Θ, has κακοποιός, a word found in N.T. only in 1 Pet. 2:12, 14, 3:16, 4:15. Perhaps ἦν followed by the pres. part. suggests a habitual evil-doer (cf. Abbott, Diat. 2277).

οὐκ ἄν σοι παρεδώκαμεν αὐτόν. σοι may be emphatic, “we should not have delivered Him up to thee” (cf. Abbott, Diat. 2566b). In any case, the reply of the Jews is an insolent one.

31. Pilate, however, knew how to deal with insolence of this kind: “Very well; take Him yourselves (ὑμεῖς being emphatic) and judge Him according to your own law,” an answer not unlike that of Gallio in Acts 18:14. Pilate repeats this Λάβετε αὐτὸν ὑμεῖς at 19:6; throughout he is unwilling to take any responsibility, and he knows that if the Jews take over the case for final settlement, they cannot inflict the death penalty. On the other hand, if they wish him to send Jesus to death, they must satisfy him that their sentence was a just one.

This rejoinder disconcerts the Jewish accusers of Jesus, who are bent upon His death, although they are not sure of their legal position as regards evidence; so they can only say, “It is not lawful for us to put any one to death.”

This was, in fact, the law from the time that Judæa became a Roman province. The jus gladii was reserved to the procurator (Josephus, B.J. II. viii. I). Josephus tells of a case in which the high priest had sentenced some persons to death by stoning, a sentence against which some citizens successfully protested as ultra vires, the high priest being deposed for his presumption (Antt. XX. 9. I). No doubt, violent and highhanded action on the part of the Sanhedrim may have been occasionally winked at by the Roman authorities, for political reasons. If Jesus had been killed by the agents of the Sannedrim before He had gained the ear of the Jerusalem populace (cf., e.g., 7:1, 25), it might have been overlooked by the procurator; but the chief priests were not sure now that they had the people with them, and their only safe course was, having examined Jesus themselves, to bring Him to Pilate for sentence.

32. In this, the evangelist, as is his wont, sees the fulfilment of a saying of Jesus. If the Jews had put Jesus to death by stoning, His death by crucifixion, of which He had already spoken (12:33), would not have taken place; and stoning was the Jewish penalty for blasphemy, of which the Sanhedrim had found Him guilty. Jn. has told nothing as yet of the charge of blasphemy, and he gives no particulars of it, merely indicating at a later point in the narrative (19:7) that it was reported to Pilate (see on v. 19 above).

ἵνα ὁ λόγος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πληρωθῇ. Cf. v. 9 for the phrase ἵνα πληρωθῇ, introducing another saying of Jesus, and see Introd., p. clv, for Jn.`s doctrine that the words of Jesus were predestined to fulfilment, even as the words of the O.T. Scriptures. The saying to which allusion is made here is, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, etc.” (12:32, where see note). There, as here, Jn. adds the comment σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεμν (see on 6:71 for this verb) ἀποθνήσκειν. See Introd., p. clv, for the comments which Jn. is accustomed to make on his narrative; and cf. 3:14 for the predictions by Jesus of His death.

33. The Roman soldiers, at this point, took charge of Jesus. Pilate retired from the open court, where he had met the Jewish leaders, and went back into his palace, summoning Jesus to come before him for private examination.

εἰσῆλθεν οὖν εἰς τό πραιτώριον πάλιν. So א A Γ Δ Θ (cf. 19:9), but B C*D^suppL W support πάλιν εἰς τὸ πραιτ. For πάλιν, which here signifies “back” to the place where Pilate was before, see on 1:35.

For ἐφώνησεν, see on 1:48. The disciple who seems to have been present at the examination of Jesus by Annas (see on v. 15) may also have been a witness of the scene in Pilate`s palace which is here told so vividly. The priestly accusers of Jesus could not follow Him inside the house, because of their scruples about ceremonial uncleanness (v. 28); but it is not likely that admission to the chamber of inquiry was forbidden to others duly introduced who wished to hear what was going on.

Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; This question was immediately put to Jesus by Pilate,¹ as all the evangelists tell (Mk. 15:2, Mt. 27:1, Lk. 23:3); but it is only Lk. who explains that Jesus had first been accused to Pilate of claiming to be a King (Lk. 23:2). Pilate fixes upon this point as one which it was necessary for him as procurator to examine, and he puts his question in a form which suggests that he expected a negative answer. “Thou! (σύ is emphatic) art Thou the King of the Jews?” Evidently, Pilate did not believe that Jesus was a revolutionary leader, as he had been informed (Lk. 23:2). There was nothing in His appearance or His demeanour to make such a charge plausible.

34. ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς. The rec. has ἀπεκρ. αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰης., but αὐτῷ is om. by A B C D^suppL and ὁ by B L. ἀπεκρ. Ἰησοῦς is a frequent Johannine opening (see on 1:29, but cf. v. 37 and 19:11). WΘ have ἀπεκρίνατο (see on 5:17).

The answer of Jesus is to put another question, viz. whether Pilate has any reason of his own, apart from the accusation just now made by the Jewish leaders (ἤ ἄλλοι εἶπον σοι περὶ ἐμοῦ;), for supposing that Jesus had claimed to be “King of the Jews.”

35. But Pilate will not bandy words with an accused prisoner. What could he know about Jesus except what he had been told? “Am I a Jew?”

“Thy nation (for ἔθνος, cf. 11:48–52) and the chief priests have delivered Thee to me,” the chief priests representing the leaders of the Sanhedrim (cf. 11:57, 12:10).

τί ἐποίησας; “What did you do?” That was the point which Pilate wished to find out. What action of Jesus had provoked this fierce hostility? Was it an action which ought to be punished, from Pilate`s point of view, with death?

36. But Jesus does not answer this question. He goes back to the charge that He had claimed to be “King of the Jews.” He had refused such a title already (6:15), but He had often spoken of a coming kingdom. It was the kingdom of which Daniel had written (Dan. 2:44, 7:14, 27), a spiritual kingdom of which the saints were to be citizens. And this He states before Pilate, that there may be no ambiguity in His position. When cross-examined by the priests, as the Synoptists tell, He had accepted their statement that He claimed to be Messiah (Mk. 14:62, Mt. 26:64, Lk. 22:70), and so far there was some plausibility in their accusation of Him before Pilate. But He did not interpret the title of Messiah as implying earthly domination and national leadership against the suzerainty of Rome; and this was the gravamen of the charge brought against Him, so far as Pilate was concerned. Hence He tells the procurator that His kingdom is not “of this world” (cf., for the phrase ὁ κόσμος οὗτος, 8:23, 14:30). He does not claim to be “King of the Jews” in any sense that was treasonable to Rome.

εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου κτλ., “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my officers (ὑπηρέται) be striving, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews,” i.e. the hostile Jews, as regularly in Jn. (see on 5:10).

Except in this passage, ὑπηρέται in Jn. is always used of the Temple police, the “officers” of the Sanhedrim. ὑπηρέτης occurs only 4 times in the LXX (Prov. 14:35, Wisd. 6:4, Isa. 32:5, Dan. 3:46), and always means the minister or officer of a king, as here. Jesus tells Pilate that He, too, has His ὑπηρέται, as well as the high priests, but that just because His kingdom is of the spirit they are not defending Him by force.

Who are meant here by the ὑπηρέται of Jesus? Certainly not the small and timid company of His disciples, who made no attempt to prevent His arrest, with the sole exception of Peter, whose action only showed the uselessness of trying to resist the police and the soldiers. Jesus, indeed, according to Mt. (26:52) as well as Jn. (18:11), forbade Peter to employ force; but He did not suggest that the resort to arms by the disciples would have been of any practical use. Pilate knew very well that the followers of Jesus were not numerous enough to resist by force the carrying out of any sentence of his.

The ὑπηρέται of Jesus upon whom He might call, if He would, were mentioned by Him, according to Mt. 26:53, at the moment of His arrest: “Thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and He shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?” These were the ὑπηρέται of the kingdom which Jesus had come to establish.

ἠγωνίζοντο. The verb does not occur again in Jn.; cf 1 Tim. 6:12.

νῦν δέ κτλ., “but now, as things are, my kingdom is not from hence,” sc. of this world. For νῦν δέ, cf. 8:40, 9:41, 15:22.

37. Οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; Pilate fastens on this mention of Jesus’ kingdom: “Well then, are you a king?” The concluding σύ is incredulous in its emphasis: “you poor prisoner.” οὐκοῦν is found again in the Greek Bible only in the A text of 2 Kings 5:23.

ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς. The art. is omitted, according to Jn.’s usual habit when using this phrase (see on 1:29, 50), by L WΓ Δ but it must be retained here, being read by א A B D^suppN.

Σὺ λέγεις ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰμι. Westcott-Hort note in the margin that this might be taken as a question: “Do you say that I am a king?” But the Synoptists agree in giving as the reply of Jesus to the question “Art thou the King of the Jews?” the words σὺ λέγεις (Mk. 15:2, Mt. 27:11, Lk. 23:3), which is neither a clear affirmation nor a denial, but an assent given as a concession. But cf. the answer ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι to the question of the priests, “Art thou the Son of God?” in Lk. 22:70. Here, in like manner, we must translate, “Thou sayest that I am a king.” This is the point on which Pilate has been insisting, that Jesus’ claim seemed to be one of kingship, and Jesus admits it again (cf. v. 36), but adds some explanatory words.

The R.V. margin offers the alternative rendering, “Thou sayest it, because I am a king,” but the Synoptic parallels do not support this.

It has been alleged that σὺ λέγεις or σὺ εἶπας was a Rabbinic formula of solemn affirmation (Schöttgen on Mt. 26:25), but Dalman has shown that this cannot be sustained. Where “thou hast said” appears in the Talmud, it is merely equivalent to “you are right.”¹ In any case, we have here not an ellipse such as σὺ λέγεις, with nothing added, but a complete sentence, “Thou sayest that I am a king.”

After εἰμι the rec. adds ἐγώ (repeating it again in the next sentence, ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο κτλ.) with AΓ Δ N Θ, but א B D^suppL omit the first ἐγώ. If it were genuine, it might carry a reference to the contemptuous σύ in Pilate’s question; but the answer is more dignified, without any emphasis on the “I”: “Thou sayest that I am a king.”

ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι. Here the ἐγώ is impressive: “To this end I have been born.”¹ See note on 1:13; and cf. Lk. 1:35 τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον, Jn. 16:21 ἐγεννήθη. The reference is to the Nativity, not to the Incarnation; cf. also Rom. 14:9.

καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, a favourite Johannine phrase, e.g. 9:39, 16:28; see on 11:27.

ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. Truth is one of the keywords of the Fourth Gospel (see on 1:14). It was John the Baptist’s privilege to bear witness to the truth (5:33), but in a deeper and fuller measure was this the purpose of Jesus mission. His witness to the truth was not confined to this “good confession” before Pilate (1 Tim. 6:13), but was continuous throughout His ministry (3:11, 32, 7:7, 8:14). Cf Rev. 1:5.

πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας (for this description of a candid mind, cf. 1 Jn. 3:19) ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς, “heareth my voice,” i.e. hears with appreciation and obedience, for such is the force of ἀκούειν followed by the gen. (see on 3:8). The sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd (10:16, 27); and the spiritual deafness which does not hear it is blameworthy (see on 8:47, and cf. 1 Jn. 4:6). No such claim on man’s allegiance was ever made by any other master: “Every one who is of the truth heareth my voice.”

Pilate Suggests to the Jews, Unavailingly, that Jesus Should Be Released (vv. 38–40)

38. Pilate is now convinced that Jesus` “kingdom” is not a temporal one, and that He is innocent of revolutionary designs. His rejoinder is perhaps wistful rather than cynical or careless: “What is truth?” But to this, the greatest of questions, he does not wait for an answer. He goes outside again (πάλιν, see v. 29) to the Jews assembled in the courtyard, and roundly tells them that he can find no reason why Jesus should be put to death.

ἐγὼ οὐδεμίαν εὑρίσκω ἐν αὐτῷ αἰτίαν. This is the order of words in B L, but the rec., with א A N W Γ Δ Θ, puts αἰτίαν after οὐδεμίαν. According to Jn., Pilate says this three times to the Jewish accusers (19:4, 6); as also does Lk. 23:4, 14, 22, who has αἴτιον for αἰτίαν. The αἰτία is the crimen, the thing charged against the prisoner; cf. Mk. 15:26, Mt. 27:37, and see on 19:19. For this use of αἰτία, cf. Gen. 4:13, Prov. 28:17.

At this point in the narrative, Luke gives an incident unrecorded by the other evangelists (Lk. 23:7–12). He says that Pilate caught at the word “Galilæan” which had been used by the accusers of Jesus, and, anxious to evade responsibility, sent Jesus to Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, who was then at Jerusalem. According to this story, which has every mark of genuineness and which no one was likely to invent, Jesus kept silence before Herod, and having been mocked by the soldiers was sent back to Pilate. Herod was not anxious to involve himself in any question of treason against the imperial authority.

Pilate’s next effort to save Jesus, or to save himself from the shame of condemning one whom he believed to be innocent, was to appeal to a Passover custom of releasing a prisoner from custody. Of this custom we know nothing beyond what is told in the Gospels, but there is nothing improbable in the statement that it prevailed at Jerusalem. Livy tells of something similar at the Roman Lectisternia (Livy, v. xiii. 8), and there is an allusion to it in Dion. Halicar. (xii. 9).¹

39. This συνήθεια (cf. 1 Cor. 8:7, 11:16) is alluded to by the other evangelists (see Mk. 15:6, Mt. 27:15); Lk. (23:17) even makes it an ἀνάγκη.

βούλεσθε οὖν ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων; Mk. 15:9 has the question in the same words, Jesus being described as “the King of the Jews” by Pilate, with a contemptuous allusion to the charge made against Him by the chief priests.

At this stage in the narrative, Mt. 27:19 tells that a dream of Pilate’s wife was reported to him, warning him not to condemn Jesus. There is nothing of this in the other Gospels, but the incident, if genuine, would fully account for Pilate’s hesitancy in signing the death warrant.

40. ἐκραύγασαν (see on 11:43 for this verb) οὖν πάλιν κτλ., “Then they yelled again, etc.” Jn. condenses the story; he has not told before of the wild shouts of the crowd. After πάλιν, the rec. inserts πάντες, but om. א B L W. For πάλιν, N substitutes πάντες.

Μὴ τοῦτον, ἀλλὰ τὸν Βαραββᾶν. Mk. 15:11 (followed by Mt. 27:20) tells that the priests had suggested this to the mob. Mt. alone says that Pilate had offered the alternative “Jesus, or Barabbas” (Mt. 27:17, where a famous variant gives Jesus as the name also of the robber, whose patronymic was Barabbas). Lk. 23:19, 25 says that Barabbas was an insurgent and a murderer (cf. Acts 3:14); Mk. 15:7 saying that he was an associate of such. Mt. 27:16 only says that he was a “notable” prisoner (δέσμιον ἐπίσημον), and the article here, τὸν Βαρ., would agree with this, “the well-known Barabbas.”

ἦν δὲ ὁ Βαραββᾶς λῃστής. Jn.’s description of him is powerful in its brevity, and provides a good illustration of his “irony” (see on 1:45). For λῃστής, cf. 10:1, 8.

The release of Barabbas, which must have followed here, is not explicitly related. Probably Pilate ascended his βῆμα (cf. 19:13) to pronounce the formal sentence which would free the prisoner.

19:1. Pilate went back into the palace, where Jesus was, and ordered Him to be scourged, in the hope (apparently) that this sufficiently terrible punishment would satisfy the chief priests (cf. Lk. 23:16). Mk. 15:15, Mt. 27:26 connect the scourging and the mock coronation with the death sentence (see on v. 16 below), but Jn.’s narrative is very explicit and is to be followed here. The “Pillar of the Scourging” is now shown in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but in the fourth century it was shown to the Bordeaux Pilgrim in the traditional house of Caiaphas. The original pillar to which the Lord was bound was, no doubt, inside the Prætorium. Cf. Mt. 20:19, Lk. 18:33.

2. In the account of the mockery of Jesus by the soldiers of Pilate, Jn. follows Mk. 15:17, or, at any rate, uses phrases which recall Mk. There is no probability that he uses Mt. Lk. 23:11 ascribes this cruel indignity to the soldiers of Herod. The soldiers were amused by the idea that the poor prisoner claimed to be a king, and their rough jests were directed rather against the Jews than against Jesus personally. “This, then, is the King of the Jews!”

πλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν. Verbally identical with Mt. 27:28; Mk. 15:17 has πλέξαντες ἀκάνθινον στέφανον. Lk. does not mention the mock coronation. Pseudo-Peter (§ 3) attributes the jest to an individual; τις αὐτῶν ἐνεγκὼν στέφανον ἀκάνθινον ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ κυρίου.

The soldiers plaited the twigs of some thorny plant into a crown or wreath (cf. ὁ στέφανος … ὁ πλεκείς, Isa. 28:5).

ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ. This phrase, too, might be thought to come from Mt. 27:29 ἐπέθηκαν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, for Mk. 15:17 has only περιτιθέασιν αὐτῷ. But Jn. says nothing of the mock sceptre which Mt. mentions, a detail which is not in Mk. It would be precarious to infer that Jn. is using Mt.’s narrative.

καὶ ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν περιέβαλον αὐτόν. This is reminiscent of Mk. 15:17, ἐνδύουσιν αὐτὸν πορφύραν, rather than of Mt. 27:28 or Lk. 23:11 (where, however, we find περιβαλὼν αὐτὸν ἐσθῆτα λαμπράν).¹ The substitute for the regal purple (cf. 1 Macc. 8:14, etc.) may have been the scarlet cloak of one of the legionaries (χλαμύδα κοκκίνην, Mt. 27:28). Jesus had first been stripped of His own outer clothing (ἐκδύσαντες αὐτόν, Mt. 27:28). For ἱμάτιον, see on v. 23.

3. καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτόν. This clause is omitted in the rec. text, following A D^suppΓ Δ, but is retained in א B L N W Θ. It is descriptive of the soldiers approaching Jesus with mock reverence. Philo has a story of the mock coronation of a halfwitted man called Carabas by the mob at Alexandria, which illustrates this. “They approached, some as if to salute him, others as if pleading a cause, others as though making petition about public matters” (in Flacc. 6).

καὶ ἔλεγον χαῖρε, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. This is verbally identical with the pretended salutation as given in Mt. 27:29. The soldiers cried Ave! as they would to Cæsar. The art. ὁ before βασιλεὺς τ. Ἰ. suggests their derision.

καὶ ἐδίδοσαν αὐτῷ ῥαπίσματα. “They slapped Him” with the palms of their hands. See on 18:22 for ῥάπισμα. ἐδίδοσαν (א B L N W) is to be preferred to the rec. ἐδίδουν (A D^suppΓ Δ Θ). They gave Him some slaps in the face, during their cruel horse-play, but this was not a continuous form of insult, like the shouting of Ave.

4. Pilate had gone into the Prætorium to order the scourging, and he now comes out again to make another appeal to the pity of the Jews. The exact reading is not certain. A B L give καὶ ἐξῆλθεν, א D^suppΓ omit καί; and N WΘ have ἐξῆλθεν οὖν (as at 18:29: see 18:38 and cf. v. 5).

Pilate says to the Jews that He is bringing Jesus out to them, that they may understand that, as he said before (18:38), he can find no fault in Him. Up to this Jesus had been inside the Prætorium, and the scourging and mockery were probably not visible to the waiting Jews.

ὅτι οὐδεμίαν αἰτίαν εὑρίσκω ἐν αὐτῷ. א* has the shorter form ὅτι αἰτίαν οὐκ εὑρίσκω. The phrase has occurred 18:38, and appears again 19:6, in slightly different forms.

5. Jesus was brought out, no doubt weak and faint after the scourging, still wearing the mocking insignia of royalty. These He probably continued to wear until He was brought out for the last time for formal sentence (v. 15; cf. Mt. 27:31).

φορῶν. This is the regular word for “wearing” clothes; cf. Mt. 11:8, Jas. 2:3.

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς (sc. Pilate) Ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος. For ἰδού (א B L), the rec. has Jn.’s favourite ἴδε (cf. vv. 4, 14). In this verse B omits ὁ before Ἰησοῦς (see on 1:29), and also before ἄνθρωπος (cf. Zech. 6:12 ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ, referring to “the Man whose name is the Branch,” the future Builder of the Temple). For Ἰησοῦς N has Πειλᾶτος by mistake.

Ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, Ecce homo! This, on Pilate’s lips, meant, “See the poor fellow!” ὁ ἄνθρωπος, expressing pity. This is a classical use (cf. Dem. de falsa leg. 402, § 198, and Meid. 543, § 91); see also Mt. 26:74. Pilate thought to move the priests to compassion by exhibiting Jesus to them, who had been scourged by his orders, and whom the soldiers had treated as an object of mockery and rude jesting.

Jn. may mean to represent Pilate, like Caiaphas (11:51), as an unconscious prophet, his words, “Behold the Man!” pointing to the Ideal Man of all succeeding Christian generations. Abbott (Diat. 1960c) recalls some passages from Epictetus, in which ὁ ἄνθρωπος is thus used of the ideal of humanity. But such an interpretation of Pilate’s famous words is probably a Christian afterthought.

The whole clause λέγει … ἄνθρωπος is omitted in the O.L. texts a e ff² r, and also by the Coptic Q, an interesting combination.

6. ὅτε οὖν ἴδον αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς κτλ. The common people are not mentioned; the chief priests were the important persons whom Pilate wished to move from their purpose. But the sight of Jesus only angered them; and they, with their satellites (οἱ ὑπηρέται), raised the shout of “Crucify!” It has been implied throughout that this was the death which they had designed for Jesus, but the word σταύρωσον is used now for the first time. Cf. Mt. 27:22.

For ἴδον (א A D^suppL N W) the rec. with B Θ has εἶδον. After ἐκραύγασαν (cf. 18:40), the rec. adds λέγοντες with A B D^suppN W Θ (cf. 7:37); but om. א. Again, after σταύρωσον bis א A B D^suppN Θ add αὐτόν (as at v. 15); but om. BL.

Λάβετε αὐτὸν ὑμεῖς καί κτλ. “Take Him yourselves, etc.” Pilate repeats this suggestion, which had disconcerted the priests when he made it before (18:31, where see note). He now adds “and crucify Him,” although he and they both knew that the Sanhedrim could not legally do this. He also says for the third time that he can find no just cause for a death sentence (cf. 18:38 and v. 4). Jn., like Lk. (23:4, 14, 22), is careful to record that Pilate three times affirmed his conviction of Jesus’ innocence.

7. The chief priests, however, make an unexpected rejoinder. They tell Pilate that, according to Jewish law, Jesus ought to be put to death as a blasphemer, and they warn him by implication that he must not set aside their law in such a matter. It was the Roman practice to respect the laws and customs of Judæa, as of other distant provinces of the empire; and of this the accusers of Jesus remind Pilate.

Ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχομεν, viz. Lev. 24:16, which enacted that a blasphemer should be stoned to death. The chief priests knew that this could not be put into operation (see on 18:31). In any case, the witnesses had to cast the first stone (Deut. 17:7), and those who bore witness as to the blasphemy of Jesus were not in agreement with each other (Mk. 14:56). The Sanhedrim, therefore, were content, in this particular case, that the responsibility lay with Pilate.

κατὰ τὸν νόμον (the rec. adds ἡμῶν with AΓ Δ Θ, but om. א B D^suppL N W Δ) ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν. For the verb ὀφείλειν, see on 13:14.

ὅτι υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν. This charge was better founded than the charge of treason, alleged to be inherent in Jesus’ claim to be a king. “Son of God” was a recognised title of Messiah (see on 1:34); and in his examination before the chief priests Jesus had admitted that He was the Messiah (Mk. 14:62, Mt. 26:64, Lk. 22:70, in the last passage the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. being explicitly used). But He had been suspected of, and charged with, blasphemy on several occasions before this, according to Jn. See 5:18, 10:33, 36. To the question τίνα σεαυτὸν σὺ ποιεῖς; (8:53), the Jews had good ground for believing that υἱὸς θεοῦ would be His answer.

The omission of the def. articles in υἱὸς θεοῦ is probably due to the tendency to drop the article before familiar titles rather than to the phrase being used in any sense less exalted than the highest, as may be the case at Mt. 14:33. But in this, the Messianic sense, Pilate could not have understood it, any more than the centurion at the Cross (Mt. 27:54). It must have suggested to Pilate a vague, mysterious claim on the part of Jesus to be more than human; and hearing of it awakened in his mind a superstitious fear. υἱὸς θεοῦ is frequently used in inscriptions as a title of the Emperor.¹

8. ὅτε οὖν ἤκουσεν ὁ Πειλᾶτος τοῦτον τὸν λόγον κτλ. Observe that ἀκούειν followed by the acc. does not connote an intelligent hearing (see on 3:8); as Abbott says (Diat. 2586), “the hearing does not produce (upon Pilate) any result beyond emotion.”

μᾶλλον ἐφοβήθη, “he was more alarmed than he had been before” (see on 18:39).

καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον πάλιν: cf. 18:33.

Pilate’s question, Πόθεν εἶ σύ; is no formal interrogatory as to the birthplace or domicile of Jesus. He had learnt already that He was of Galilee (Lk. 23:6, 7). But Pilate has been moved by the dignified bearing of the prisoner, and is uneasy because of the strange claim which He was said to have made for Himself, that He was υἱὸς θεοῦ (v. 7). The question recalls the similar question Σὺ τίς εἶ; which was put by the Jews who were impressed, despite their incredulity, by His words (8:25).

ὁ δὲ Ἰη. ἀπόκρισιν (cf. 1:22, Lk. 2:47, 20:26) οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ. The silence of Jesus under cross-examination is mentioned in all the Gospels. Mk. 14:61, Mt. 26:63 note His silence before the high priest; Lk. 23:9 says that He did not answer Herod at all; Mk. 15:5, Mt. 27:14 state that He would not reply to the accusations which the Sanhedrim put before Pilate; and in the present passage His silence is irritating to the dignity of Pilate, who in this repeated inquiry was trying to elicit something that would save Him. Salmon suggested¹ that the silence of Jesus is sufficiently explained by bodily fatigue and exhaustion; and so far as this last examination by Pilate is concerned, it may well be that His exhaustion after being scourged was such that speech was difficult for Him. After the scourging Jn. ascribes only one sentence to Jesus (v. 11) before He was crucified. But bodily fatigue would not, by itself, explain His silence when cross-examined by the high priest (Mk. 14:61) or before Herod (Lk. 23:9); and His refusal to answer questions which were not asked in sincerity, but out of mere curiosity or with intent to betray Him into some dangerous admission, is explicable on moral grounds. Indeed, the dignity of His silence before His accusers does not need exposition. He was moving to a predestined end, and He knew it.

Many commentators, following Chrysostom and Augustine, find in the silence of Jesus before His judges a fulfilment of Isa. 53:7.

10. Pilate’s dignity is offended by receiving no answer to his question. The silence of Jesus amounts to contempt of court. Ἐμοὶ οὐ λαλεῖς; “Do you not speak to me?” ἐμοί being placed first for emphasis. “I have power (ἐξουσία) to release you, and I have power to crucify you” (the rec. text interchanges the order of these clauses).

ἐξουσία (see on 1:12) is “authority,” rather than “power.” Pilate had both, but he is reminded by Jesus that his authority, like all human authority, is delegated; its source is Divine, and therefore it is not arbitrary power which can be exercised capriciously without moral blame.

11. ἀπεκρ. αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς. A NΓ Δ Θ om. αὐτῷ, which is retained by א B D^suppW; and א A L N W Θ ins. ὁ before Ἰης., but om. B D^supp. Cf. for similar variants, 18:34.

Οὐκ εἶχες ἐξουσίαν κτλ. So B WΓ Δ Θ, but א A D^suppL have ἔχεις.

εἰ μὴ ἦν δεδομένον σοι ἄνωθεν. This doctrine of authority is expressed by Paul in other words (Rom. 13:1, 2). For ἄνωθεν, see on 3:3. It must mean “from God”; the suggestion that it means “from the ecclesiastical authority” is untenable. Pilate’s ἐξουσία was not, in fact, delegated to him by the Sanhedrim.

ὁ παραδούς μέ σοι κτλ. So א B Δ Θ; the rec., with A D^suppL N W, has παραδιδούς. Judas is repeatedly described in Jn. as the person who was to deliver Jesus up (cf. 6:64, 71, 12:4, 13:2, 21, 18:2, 5), but he is not indicated in this passage. He did not deliver Jesus up to Pilate; and he disappears from the Johannine narrative after the scene of the betrayal in the garden (18:5). In Mt. 27:3f. he is represented as repenting, after the priests brought Jesus before Pilate; but the other evangelists say nothing as to this. It is remarkable that it is not told anywhere that Judas bore “witness” to what Jesus had said or done. His part was finished when he identified Jesus at Gethsemane.

Those who delivered Jesus to Pilate were the members of the Sanhedrim (18:30, 35; cf. Mt. 27:2, Acts 3:13), with Caiaphas as their official chief. ὁ παραδούς μέ σοι is Caiaphas, as representing those who were ultimately responsible for the guilt of putting Jesus to death.

μείζονα ἁμαρτίαν ἔχει. These words are commonly taken to mean “has greater sin” than you; i.e. that Caiaphas was more guilty than Pilate; and this was, no doubt, true. But such an interpretation will not suit the context, or explain διὰ τοῦτο at the beginning of the sentence. “Your power and authority are delegated to you from God, therefore Caiaphas, who brought me before you for sentence, is more guilty than you.” That is not easy to understand; for the ἐξουσία of Caiaphas was a trust from God, equally with that of Pilate. Wetstein suggested a better explanation: “Your power and authority are delegated to you from God, therefore Caiaphas is more guilty than he would be if you were only an irresponsible executioner, for he has used this God-given authority of yours to further his own wicked projects.” μείζονα ἁμαρτίαν ἔχει, “he has greater sin,” not than you (which is not in question), but than he would have had if Pilate had not been a power ordained of God. “Therefore his sin is the greater” is the meaning.

Pilate Again Fails to Obtain the Consent of the Jews to Acquit Jesus; And Pronounces the Formal Sentence of Death by Crucifixion (vv. 12–16)

οἱ δὲ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐκραύγασαν λέγοντες κτλ. ἐκραύγασαν (B D^supp) represents the yell of fury with which the Jews received Pilate’s last attempt to set Jesus free. The rec., with א^c, has ἔκραζον, and A L NΘ have ἐκραύγαζον, but the impf. does not represent the meaning so well as the aor. does. Mt. 27:24f. relates that after Pilate’s failure to persuade the Jews he ostentatiously washed his hands, thereby endeavouring to shift his responsibility.

The last argument which the chief priests used, and which was effective, although their former overtures to Pilate (18:30, 19:7) had failed, was an appeal to his fears. “If you release Him, you are no friend of Cæsar.” There is no need to limit the term φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος, as if it were an official title (cf. 15:15); the expression is used generally. The official title is probably not found before Vespasian.

πᾶς ὁ βασιλέα ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν κτλ., “every one who makes himself a king,” which was the charge brought in the first instance against Jesus (see on 18:33), ἀντιλέγει (only here in Jn.), “opposes Cæsar.” Here was a veiled threat. If Pilate were reported at Rome to have set free a man making pretension to the title “King of the Jews,” it might go badly with him. Treason to the emperor was the cardinal offence for a viceroy or procurator.

13. We must read τῶν λόγων τούτων, with א A B W, rather than τοῦτον τὸν λόγον of the rec. text, which has come in from v. 8. Pilate not only heard what the Jews said, but he appreciated its force (see on 3:8 for ἀκούειν followed by the gen.). The reference is to the threat of v. 12. Pilate could not afford to have it reported to the emperor that he had acquitted a prisoner who was accused of setting himself up as a king. His position would be safe only if the Jews asked for an acquittal; for then he could always say that the charge had broken down.

ἤγαγεν ἔξω τὸν Ἰη., “he led Jesus out,” sc. from the Praetorium, where He had been under examination (v. 9).

ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος must be rendered “he sat down on the judgment seat,” i.e. Pilate sat down, the examination being over, intending now to give judgment with full dignity. Before he finally passed sentence, he gave the priests another opportunity of claiming, or acquiescing in, the release of Jesus. This (intransitive) rendering of ἐκάθισεν agrees with Mt.’s report καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος (Mt. 27:19), as well as with the only other place where ἐκάθισεν occurs in Jn. (12:14). We have καθίσας ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος used of Herod and of Festus in Acts 12:21, 25:6, 17.

καθίζειν, however, is used transitively in 1 Cor. 6:4, Eph. 1:20 (cf. Hermas, Vis. III. ii. 4), and Archbishop Whately maintained¹ that ἐκάθισεν should be rendered transitively here, the meaning being that Pilate did not sit on the Βήμα himself, but set Jesus on it in derision. It is worthy of note that there was a tradition current in the second century that Jesus had thus been placed by the Jews on the judgment seat. It appears in the Gospel of Peter (§ 3): ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, λέγοντες, Δικαίως κρῖνε, βασιλεῦ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ Justin (whencesoever he obtained the tradition) has it also: διασύροντες αὐτὸν (referring to Isa. 58:2) ἐκάθισαν ἐπὶ βήματος, καὶ εἶπον Κρῖνον ἡμῖν (Apol. i. 35). Perhaps it came from a misunderstanding of Jn. 19:13, attributing this derisive action to Pilate, not to the Jews. But a misunderstanding it must be, for, apart from the intransitive use of καθίζειν being always found elsewhere in the Gospels, it is inconceivable that a Roman procurator should be so regardless of his dignity, when about to pronounce sentence of death, as to make a jest of the matter.²

ἐπὶ βήματος, “upon a judgment seat,” sc. perhaps upon one improvised for the occasion, as the Jews would not enter the Prætorium, and judgment had to be given in public.

Josephus (Bell. Jud. II. ix. 3), when telling of another sentence pronounced by Pilate, has ὁ Πιλᾶτος καθίσας ἐπὶ βήματος ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ σταδίῳ, judgment in this case also being delivered in the open air. Here we have ἐπὶ βήματος εἰς τόπον κτλ., instead of ἐν τόπῳ. Perhaps εἰς is used because of the verb at the beginning of the sentence (see on 9:7); but it is possible that it is used for ἐν here, as it often is in Mk.³ and in Lk. and Acts. See on 1:18, 9:7

εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Λιθόστρωτον, Ἑβραϊστὶ (see on 5:2) δὲ Γαββαθά. Λιθόστρωτον is not the interpretation of the name Gabbatha (see on 4:25); Jn. gives the two names, Greek and Aramaic, of distinct derivation, by which the place was known. The word Λιθόστρωτον does not occur again in the N.T., and in the LXX it is found only at Esth. 1:6, Cant. 3:10, 2 Chron. 7:3; in the last-mentioned passage being applied to the pavement of Solomon’s temple. (cf. Josephus, Antt. VIII. iii. 2).

The situation of the Prætorium has been already discussed (see on 18:28), and we have identified it with Herod’s Palace, which was to the south of the Temple area. But the name Gabbatha is not known elsewhere. Its derivation is probably from the root גבה “to be high,” so that נַּבְּתָא would mean “an elevated place.”¹ G. A. Smith (Jerusalem, ii. 575) suggests that it is derived from גבב, “to pack closely,” so that Gabbatha would be equivalent to “a mosaic.”

It was customary to place the βῆμα or judgment seat on a dais of tesselated or mosaic pavement, in order that the judge might be seen and heard conveniently; and Julius Cæsar is said to have carried about with him tessellata et sectilia pavimenta, to be laid down wherever he encamped (Suet. Jul. 46). A portable dais of this kind could not, however, have given its name to a locality; Λιθόστρωτον was probably one of the names by which the elevated place of judgment came to be known, because of the mosaic pavement which was laid down for the sake of dignity

14. ἦν δὲ Παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, i.e. “Friday of the Passover week.” Elsewhere (Mk. 15:42, Lk. 23:54, Mt. 27:62, and Jn. 19:31) παρασκευή means the day of preparation for the Sabbath, as here (see on 19:42 for a possible exception). Thus Josephus has ἐν σάββασιν ἤ τῇ πρὸ αὐτῆς παρασκευῇ (Antt. xvi. 6. 2); and in the Didache (§ 8) παρασκευή again means Friday (cf. Clem. Alex. Strom., § 75).

In the year of the Passion, the Passover, i.e. Nisan 14, fell on a Friday (v. 31). Had the meaning of παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα here meant “It was the Preparation day of the Passover,” i.e. the day before the Passover, we should have had ἡ παρασκευή with the def. article. See on v. 42.

ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἓκτη. So א A B N W and vss. For ἓκτη, א^cD^suppL Δ read τρίτη, thus harmonising the text with Mk. 15:25. Eusebius (as quoted by Severus) explains the variant by ascribing it to the confusion between Γ (3) and F (6).¹ But the textual evidence for ἕκτη is overwhelming.

In Mk. 15:25 Jesus is said to have been crucified at “the third hour,” the darkness beginning at “the sixth hour” and continuing until “the ninth hour,” when He died. This is corrected by Jn.,² who tells that the Crucifixion did not begin until after “the sixth hour,” i.e. after noon. The hypothesis that Jn.’s method of reckoning time was different from that of the Synoptists is inadmissible (see on 1:39). That a discrepancy should exist as to the actual hour will not surprise any one who reflects on the loose way in which time intervals are often reported by quite honest witnesses.³ Jn. is specially careful to fix the time at which things happened, and he is here followed by the Acts of John (§ 97), in which it is distinctly said “at the sixth hour.” Indeed it is difficult to believe that all that happened on the day of the Passion before Jesus was actually crucified was over by 9 a.m., as Mk.’s report indicates.

For ἴδε “behold,” a favourite word with Jn., see on 1:29; and cf. v. 14 above for the derisive Ἴδε, ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν. The sarcasm of Pilate is directed against the Jews, not against Jesus.

15. ἐκραύγασαν οὖν ἐκεῖνοι. So א^cB L, ἐκεῖνοι being emphatic: the rec. text has οἱ δὲ ἐκραύγασαν. W has ἔλεγον. For κραυγάζειν, see on 11:43 (cf. v. 6).

Ἆρον ἆρον. Cf. Lk. 23:18 αἶρε τούτον, and Acts 21:36. Moulton-Milligan illustrate this usage of αἴρω from a second-century papyrus letter in which a mother says of her son: “He upsets me; away with him!” (ἄρρον αὐτόν).

Τὸν βασιλέα ὑμῶν σταυρώσω; Pilate’s ironical question is made specially incisive by the prominence in the sentence of τ. βασιλέα ὑμ.

οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, who have been the prime movers throughout (cf. vv. 6, 21, and 12:10), in their eagerness to answer Pilate, not only deny that Jesus was their King, but repudiate the idea that they have any king but Cæsar, thus formally denying the first principle of the Jewish theocracy that “Yahweh was their King” (1 Sam. 12:12). Implicitly, they denied the ideal of the Messianic King, in order to conciliate a heathen power; and thus, by saying “We have no king but Cæsar,” they abandoned that which was most distinctive of the religion of Judaism. In words, they not only rejected Jesus; they repudiated the claims of the Christ, to whose Advent they professed to look forward. So, at least, the Johannine narrative implies.

To be sure, they did not mean as much as this; they were so anxious to gain their point that they did not measure their words. By the time the Fourth Gospel was written, the Jewish state had been overthrown by Titus; and some of those who avowed before Pilate their unreserved loyalty to Cæsar had doubtless fallen, fighting against Cæsar’s legions.

16. τότε οὖν παρέδωκεν κτλ. Pilate’s efforts to save Jesus had failed. The people had taken up the cry, “Crucify Him!” The priests had just announced their loyalty to Cæsar in extravagant terms, and Pilate was afraid of their innuendo (v. 12) that he was not overzealous in Cæsar’s cause. Therefore, afraid of the popular clamour, and not specially interested in the fate of an unpopular fanatic (as he deemed Jesus to be), “he delivered Him to them,” i.e. to the Jews (cf. 18:36 ἳνα μὴ παραδοθῶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις), “that He might be crucified.”

The usual form of sentence in such cases was “ibis ad crucem,” but the Gospels do not record that it was formally pronounced. This may have been done, but in any case Pilate’s attitude was rather that he acquiesced in the capital penalty being inflicted than that he approved it. According to Roman custom, after the death sentence was pronounced, the criminal was first scourged, and then led off to execution without delay. So Josephus says of crucifixions under the procurator Florus: μαστιγῶσαί τε πρὸ τοῦ βήματος καὶ σταυρῷ προσηλῶσαι (Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 9). Mk. (followed by Mt.) represents the scourging of Jesus as taking place at this point, that is, after His sentence. According to Jn. (19:1), He had already been scourged by Pilate’s order, in the hope that the Jews would be satisfied with this sufficiently terrible punishment (cf. Lk. 23:22). It is probable that Jn.’s report is the more accurate here; and it is not likely that Pilate would have permitted a second scourging.

17. παρέλαβον οὖν τὸν Ἰη., “So they received Jesus,” sc. at the hands of Pilate (cf. 1:11, 14:3, the only other places where Jn. used παραλαμβάνειν).

A W add καὶ ἀπήγαγον after Ἰησοῦν, and D^suppΓ Δ Θ read καὶ ἤγαγον; but B L 33 a b c e ff add nothing (cf. Mk. 15:20 Lk. 23:26, Mt. 27:31, from a reminiscence of which passages ἀπήγαγον has crept into the Johannine text).

βαστάζων ἑαυτῷ τὸν σταυρόν. So א; the rec. has βαστάζων τὸν στ. αὐτοῦ. B has αὐτῳ. For βαστάζειν, see on 12:6.

A criminal condemned to be crucified was required to carry his own cross; cf. Plutarch (de sera numinis vindicta, 9), ἕκαστος κακούργων ἐκφέρει τὸν αὑτοῦ σταυρόν, and Artemidorus (Oneir. ii. 56), ὁ μέλλων σταυρῷ προσηλοῦσθαι πρότερον αὐτὸν βαστάζει, a custom which gives special point to the exhortation, Mk. 8:34. The Synoptists speak of the Cross being borne by Simon of Cyrene, and do not mention that Jesus carried it Himself; however, the ancient explanation is sufficient, viz. that Jesus carried it as they were leaving the Prætorium, but that when He was found to be overborne by its weight, Simon was compelled to carry it for Him. The patristic idea that Jesus bearing His Cross was typified by Isaac, upon whom τὰ ξύλα (Gen. 22:6) were laid, as he went to the place of sacrifice, goes back to Melito¹ and Tertullian.² See on 18:12.

ἐξῆλθεν, “He went out,” for executions were not allowed within the city walls. See on v. 20.

εἰς τὸν λεγ. κρανίου τόπον κτλ. Γολγοθά is the transliteration of the Aramaic גּוּלְגַּלְתָּא, Hebrew גֻּלְגּוֹלֶת which is transl. by κρανίον in Judg. 9:53, 2 Kings 9:35. For Ἑβραϊστί, see on 5:2; and for Jn.’s habit of giving Aramaic names with their Greek equivalents, see on 1:38. Mk. 15:22 and Mt. 27:33 give the Greek name as Κρανίου, Lk. 23:33 giving Κρανίον, while Mt. and Mk. as well as Jn. supply also the Aramaic designation.

We do not know why this place was called “the Place of a Skull” (Calvaria). Origen is the first to mention a tradition, afterwards widely prevalent, that Adam was believed to be buried on this site (Comm. in Mt. 27:33); but no evidence has been found to show that this was a pre-Christian tradition, and the idea may have grown out of a passage like 1 Cor. 15:22. It has been suggested in modern times that this place-name was given because of the shape of the knoll or little hill where the Crucifixion was carried out. But there is no tradition whatever in favour of this, nor is there any evidence in the Gospel narratives to support the popular idea that Calvary was on a hill or rising ground. Yet another explanation of the name “Golgotha” is that it means “the place of skulls,” i.e. a public place of execution, where the bodies of the victims were left. This would require κρανίων not κρανίου, not to speak of the facts that bodies were never left unburied in this way near a town, and that Joseph of Arimathea’s “new tomb” (19:41) would certainly not have been built near a place so abhorrent to a Jew. The tradition reproduced by Origen may be pre-Christian; and if so it gives an explanation of the name Golgotha, but no other explanation is, in any case, forthcoming. See on v. 20.

18. ὅπου αὐτὸν ἐσταύρωσαν, “where they crucified Him,” i.e. the soldiers¹ (see v. 23), who were told off for the purpose.

μετʼ αὐτοῦ ἄλλους δύο. Mt. and Mk. call them λῃσταί (such as Barabbas was, 18:40); Lk. says κακοῦργοι; Jn. does not apply any epithet to them. All the evangelists note that the Cross of Jesus was placed between the other two. Mediæval fancy gave names to the robbers, Dismas or Titus or πιστός to the penitent (who is generally represented as on the right side of the Cross of Jesus), Gestas or Dumachus or θεομάχος being the impenitent one.

ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν. Cf. Dan. 12:5 (Theodotion); the LXX has the more usual ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν: cf. 1 Macc. 6:38, 9:45.

19. τίτλον. The title or titulus, the technical name for the board bearing the name of the condemned or his crime or both, is only so called by Jn. In Mk. it is called ἡ ἐπιγραφή. Also it is only Jn. who tells that Pilate wrote it. As it appears in Jn. it included both the Name (Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος; see 18:5) and an indication of the crime, conveyed in words of mockery (ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. In Mk. and Lk. only the αἰτία is given, the name being absent, while Mt. has οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.² It is not possible to determine which form is verbally correct, but probably it was considered sufficient to give the αἰτία only. In Suetonius (Domit. 10) the terms of a similar titulus are preserved: “impie locutus parmularius,” i.e. “a parmularian (the name by which the adherents of a gladiatorial party were known) who has spoken impiously.”

ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: in Mt. 27:37 we have ἐπέθηκαν ἐπάνω τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ, which suggests that the cross was of the shape called crux immissa, with a cross-bar for the arms, as painters have generally represented it to be.

20. το͂τον ὀ͂ν τὸν τίτλον κτλ. “This title, then (οὖν being a favourite conjunction with Jn.; see on 1:22), many of the Jews read,” as they would have opportunity of doing, the place being near the city, and as they would be able to do, because it was written in Aramaic as well as in Latin (the official language) and Greek (a detail peculiar to Jn.). That “many of the Jews” read the title placed in mockery above the cross, “the King of the Jews,” is not explicitly stated by any other evangelist, and Jn. makes no comment on it. But the irony of the statement is plain enough, and it is probably intentional. See on 1:45.

ἐγγὺς ἦν κτλ. We may translate this either by “the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city,” or “the place of the city where Jesus was crucified was near”; but the former rendering is to be preferred. He suffered, not within the city walls, but “without the gate” (Heb. 13:12); cf. Mt. 27:32, Num. 15:35, Acts 7:58. The traditional site of Golgotha may not be the true one, but it has better claims to recognition than any other.¹ Although within the present walls of Jerusalem, it may have been outside the walls as they existed in the first century.

21. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. That the “chief priests” were “of the Jews” seems superfluous to mention, but Jn. writes for Greek readers. See on 2:6, and cf. 6:4.

They were uneasy about the title, lest any should fail to understand that it was written in mockery, and so they appealed to Pilate to change it. None of this is told by the Synoptists.

22. ὃ γέγραφα γέγραφα. Pilate was a true Roman in his respect for an official document. He was himself responsible for the phrasing of the titulus; and, once written and affixed to the cross, it was the expression of a legal decision. From the legal point of view he was right in refusing to alter its terms. Litera scripta manet.

To the form of expression, “What I have written, I have written,” Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. iii. 432) gives some Rabbinic parallels (cf. also Gen. 43:14, Esth. 4:16); but they are hardly apposite, as Pilate was not a Jew. Cf., however, ὅσα ἐστήσαμεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἕστηκεν (1 Macc. 13:38). The perf. tense γέγραφα marks the permanence and abiding character of his act. Jn. uses the perfect as distinct from the aorist, with strict linguistic propriety.

23. ἔλαβον τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ. Nothing is said of the clothes of the crucified robbers. It was customary to remove the clothes before a condemned person was nailed to the cross, and by Roman law they were the perquisites of the soldiers who acted as executioners.¹ But, presumably, the clothes of the malefactors were not worth anything, and so are not mentioned.

Of the soldiers there was the usual quaternion (τετράδιον, Acts 12:4); and according to the Synoptists (Mk. 15:39, Mt. 27:54, Lk. 23:47) a centurion was also present. The Synoptists do not give any detailed account of the doings of the soldiers; they merely say, paraphrasing the words of Ps. 22:18 (which was no doubt in their minds), that the soldiers divided the clothes, casting lots. But throughout the Johannine account of the Crucifixion (vv. 23–37), the fuller testimony of an eye-witness (see v. 35) reveals itself. This account is due to one who was near the Cross all the time. And so Jn. tells that it was for the χίτων or long cassock-shaped coat (as distinguished from the ἱμάτιον or outer cloak: cf. v. 2 and Mt. 5:40, Lk. 6:29), which was woven in one piece, that lots were cast; and he adds that this was ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, quoting Ps. 22:18 from the LXX:

καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον.²

In this verse ἱμάτια and ἱματισμός represent distinct Hebrew words, בֶּנֶד and לְבוֹּשׁ, but it is not always possible to distinguish the meanings of these. In the original context, we have the ordinary parallelism of Hebrew poetry; but Jn. finds in the words an inspired forecast of that which was witnessed at the Crucifixion, viz. the division of some garments, and the drawing of lots for one in particular. “These things, therefore, the soldiers did.” Jn. sees in all the incidents of the Passion the fulfilment of the Divine purpose disclosed in the O.T., and so he says that these things happened ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ.¹

The χίτων was ἄρραφος (this word does not occur elsewhere in the Greek Bible), “without seam,” as was the robe of the high priest’s ephod (a long garment, ὑποδύτης ποδήρης, Ex. 28:32). Josephus (Ant. III. vii. 4) calls this robe of the high priest a χίτων, and (following the directions given in Exodus) he explains elaborately that it was woven in one piece.² But this is only a verbal coincidence; the idea of a high-priestly robe does not enter here.³ χίτων is the ordinary word for the long coat worn in the East under the cloak. It was of some value, and Jn. records that the soldiers said (the witness was near enough to hear the words) Μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτόν. ἀλλὰ λάχωμεν περὶ αὐτοῦ τίνος ἔσται.

Field (in loc.) urges that λαγχάνειν is unprecedented in the sense of “to cast lots,” its usual meaning being “to obtain by lot.” But Symmachus translated יַפִּילוּ גוֹרָל in Ps. 22:18 by ἐλάγχανον.

The account of this incident in the second-century Gospel of Peter is as follows: τεθεικότες τὰ ἐνδύματα ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ διεμερίσαντο, καὶ λαχμὸν ἔβαλον ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς, “having set His garments before Him, they parted them among them and cast a lot for them.” It is not stated by Pseudo-Peter that this was the act of the soldiers, who appear a little later as a body of eight men, with a centurion, guarding the tomb, while Jn. is explicit that there were only four: τέσσερα μέρη, ἑκάστῳ στρατιώτῃ μέρος. The unusual word λαχμός, for κλῆρος, in Pseudo-Peter may have been suggested by Jn.’s λάχωμεν. It is reproduced by Justin (Tryph. 97), who quotes Ps. 22:15–18 from the LXX, and adds: ὅτε γὰρ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν, ἐμπήσσοντες τοὺς ἥλους τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ὤρυξαν, καὶ οἱ σταυρώσαντες αὐτὸν ἐμέρισαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἑαυτοῖς, λαχμὸν βάλλοντες ἕκαστος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κλήρου ἐπιβολὴν ὃ ἐκλέξεσθαι ἐβεβούλητο.

οἱ μὲν οὖν στρατ. κτλ. μέν, recalling what the soldiers did, corresponds to δέ in v. 25 introducing the fact that the women were present. μὲν οὖν occurs again in Jn. only at 20:30, where also it is followed by a corresponding δέ.

25. εἱστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ κτλ. From the Synoptic parallels (Mk. 15:40, Mt. 27:56; cf. Lk. 24:10) we gather that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and Salome the wife of Zebedee and mother of the apostles James and John, were present at the Cross. Jn. enumerates Mary the mother of Jesus (whose presence the Synoptists do not mention), her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, i.e. four persons and not three as one reading of the text might suggest. Not only does the Peshitta make this clear by putting “and” before “Mary the wife of Clopas”; but the balance of the sentence, if four persons are indicated, is thoroughly Johannine. If we compare this with the Synoptic parallels we reach two important conclusions: (1) Salome was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, and therefore John the son of Zebedee and Salome was a maternal cousin of Jesus. (2) Mary the wife of Clopas is the same person as Mary the mother of James and Joseph (cf. Mt. 27:56, Mk. 15:40, 47, 16:1, Lk. 24:10). It would be impossible to equate the Synoptic “Mary, the mother of James and Joseph” with the Lord’s mother, for no one can suppose that the Synoptists, when telling the names of the women at the Cross, would have described the mother of Jesus in so circuitous a manner. This James is called by Mk. ὁ Ἰακώβος ὁ μικρός or “James the Little,” the adjective not relating to his dignity, but to his stature. Of him we know nothing more.

Attempts have been made to identify Clopas with Alphæus, who was father of one of the Twelve (James the son of Alphæus, Mk. 3:18, Mt. 10:3, Lk. 6:15, Acts 1:13); but philological considerations will not permit us to reduce Clopas and Alphœus to the same Hebrew original.¹ The N.T. tells us no more of Clopas (Cleopas of Lk. 24:18 is a different name); but Hegesippus² (fl. circa 150 a.d.), states that he was the brother of Joseph, the Lord’s foster-father, and so “the Lord’s uncle.” Hegesippus also says that he had a son, Symeon or Simon, who became second bishop of Jerusalem, “being a cousin of the Lord,” succeeding James the Just, “the Lord’s brother,” who was the first bishop. See, further, Additional Note on 2:12.

The MSS. vary as to the spelling of Mary Magdalene’s name (Μαριάμ or Μαρία), but Mary of Clopas seems to be always Μαρία. As we have seen (on 11:2, 20), B 33 always describe Mary of Bethany as Μαριάμ, while א always has Μαρία. But when Mary Magdalene (whom we take to be the same person) is mentioned the usage is different. In 19:25, 20:1, 11 B gives Μαρία, and א 33 give Μαριάμ. At 20:16, 18 א B 33 agree in reading Μαριάμ. Probably the Hebrew form Μαριάμ should be adopted throughout (this is the spelling in Pseudo-Peter).³

26. Ἰησοῦς κτλ. For the omission the article before Ἰησοῦς when followed by οὖν, see on 6:15.

τῇ μητρί. So א B L. A D^suppN L Γ Δ Θ, some O.L. texts, and the Coptic Q add αὐτοῦ, as in the rec. text.

The true reading, both here and in v. 27, seems to be ἴδε (a favourite word with Jn.; see on 1:29), and not ἰδού which occurs only 16:32, 19:5. In v 26 א A Θ give ἰδού, but B D^suppN have ἴδε. In v. 27 ἰδού is read by A D^supp, ἴδε being read by א B L N Θ.

The Coptic Q and the O.L. e omit the introductory γύναι, perhaps feeling it to be harsh.

The reasons for identifying “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with John the son of Zebedee and Salome, the maternal cousin of Jesus, have been given in the Introduction, p. xxxvif. We now find John at the Cross, with the women, including the Virgin Mother and his own mother Salome.

It was natural that the Virgin should be commended to his care, rather than to the care of “the brethren,” James and Simon and Joseph and Jude, with whom she had been so intimately associated in the past, and whose home she had probably shared (see on 2:12), because they were not yet disciples; they had not accepted the claims of Jesus or believed in His mission. As we have seen, John was nephew to Mary, and in sympathy he was nearer to her than these stepsons. And so Jesus bade His mother look to John, His beloved friend and cousin, to be her “son.” He is going from her, but John will take His place in such measure as is possible

The words “Woman, behold thy son … behold thy mother” are more than a mere commendation¹ or suggestion from a dying friend. They convey a command from Him who was, to Mary, as well as to John, Master and Lord. He did not address her as “Mother,” even while He shows tender solicitude for her future. “Mother,” as a title of address by Jesus, was abandoned long since, and for it “Woman,” a usual title of respect, has been substituted. See on 2:4.

When Jesus said to John “Behold thy mother,” John’s own mother, Salome, was present and may have overheard the words. But the Virgin was her sister, broken-hearted and desolate, with whom she was in complete sympathy, for she too had accepted Jesus as Master. She was not necessarily set aside or superseded by the charge to her son to regard her sister Mary as a second mother, and treat her with filial care.

The place which this farewell charge occupies among the Words from the Cross is noteworthy, as will be seen if they are read in their probable sequence.

The evangelical narratives of the Passion reflect at least three distinct lines of tradition. The Marcan tradition (which according to Papias goes back to Peter, whose disciple Mark was) is followed with amplifications of a later date by Matthew. It is also followed by Luke, who seems, however, to have had some additional source of information. His account of the trial before Herod (23:8–12), e.g., has no parallel in the other Gospels; and it has been often observed that Luke alone mentions Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, as one of the women who accompanied Jesus in His public ministry (Lk. 8:3) and were present at the Crucifixion (Lk. 23:49) and heralds of the Resurrection (Lk. 23:55, 24:10). To this Joanna, Luke’s special information as to the Passion may possibly be due. The third distinct tradition of the Passion is that of Jn., which goes back for details to the personal witness of the Beloved Disciple (19:35).

The Marcan tradition reports one Word from the Cross, the Lucan tradition three, and the Johannine tradition yet another three. There is nothing surprising in this variation. Independent witnesses may honestly and truthfully give different, although not inconsistent, reports of the same events. They report only what they have personally observed, and only such part of that as has specially impressed them or is suitable for the purposes of their narrative, if they are writing one. It may not be possible to harmonise precisely the various accounts of the Passion, or to place the Words from the Cross in exact chronological sequence. But there is no critical objection to the order which has generally commended itself to students of the Gospels, as being suggested by the sacred text. It may be set out as follows:

1. Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς· οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν (Lk. 23:34). This comes in the Lucan narrative, according to the received text, immediately after the statement that Jesus had been crucified between the two thieves. But that it is part of the original text of Lk. is uncertain; it is omitted by א^aB D* and other authorities, and Westcott-Hort “cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source.”¹ Wherever it comes from, whether the knowledge of it came to Lk. from some eye-witness, such as Joanna, or whether it found its way into the text of Lk., after his narrative was completed, it has an unmistakable note of genuineness.

2. Ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, σήμερον μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ (Lk. 23:43). This was addressed to the penitent thief, and, like the First Word, must have been said at the beginning of the awful scene. “It was now about the sixth hour,” is Lk.’s comment (Lk. 23:44); i.e. it was about noon. See on Jn. 19:14. The report of this saying must have come from some one who stood near the Cross, and so was able to hear what was said.

3. Γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου … Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ σου (Jn. 19:26, 27). There is no difficulty in understanding why this saying should have been specially treasured in memory by the Beloved Disciple, and thus recorded at last in the Fourth Gospel. It was specially addressed to him, and to her whom he was to cherish henceforth as a mother; there is no reason to suppose that other bystanders were unable to hear the words.

If we examine the sequence of these first three Words from the Cross, in the order seemingly suggested in the Gospel texts, we cannot fail to notice the narrowing of the circle of interest, as death draws near. That always happens. When death is at a distance, men are still concerned with the wider interests of life; then it draws closer, and it is only the nearer and more intimate interests that appeal; and the time comes when the energies of thought are taxed to the full by the messages of farewell to those who have been best beloved. So it was with the Son of Man. In the hour of death, the first movement of the heart of Jesus is towards those who had brought Him to the Cross. “Father, forgive them.” His mission of Redemption is still in His thoughts. Then, as strength ebbs away, the cry of the penitent thief by His side reaches Him, and the response to the individual pleading does not fail. “This day shalt thou be with me.” But the circle is narrowing fast. His dying eyes are fixed upon those who have been dearest. The forgiveness of enemies; the consolation of the fellow-sufferer; these give place to the thought of mother and of friend. “Behold thy son … behold thy mother.” These are the stages of the approach of death, for the Perfect Man.

4. Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? θεέ μου, θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες; (Mt. 27:46, Mk. 15:34). This is the only Word from the Cross which rests upon the Marcan tradition, and may be taken as due to Peter. It was uttered “with a loud voice,” and so could be heard even by those standing at a distance, as Peter probably was. (Cf. Mt. 27:55, ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ γυναῖκες πολλαὶ ἀπὸ μακρόθεν θεωροῦσαι.) There is no hint in any Gospel that he was one of the little circle who stood near the cross. This cry was misunderstood by the crowd, who thought that Jesus was calling for succour upon Elijah the prophet, an observation (Mk. 15:35) which shows that we have here to do with words actually used, and not with words afterwards placed in the mouth of Jesus, being thought appropriate as the opening phrase of a Messianic Psalm (Ps. 22:1). Indeed, the difficulty that interpreters have always felt in explaining these words of seeming despair as spoken by One who was Himself Divine, proves that they are not likely to have been the invention of pious fancy dwelling afterwards on the Agony of Calvary. They were reproduced later in a Docetic form in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter: Ἡ δύναμίς μου, ἡ δύναμις, κατέλειψάς με. Why they are not recorded by Lk. or Jn. it is idle to conjecture.

5. Διψῶ (Jn. 19:28). This was spoken near the end. Although the actual word διψῶ is recorded only by Jn., yet the incident of the Lord’s thirst being assuaged is given in Mk. 15:36 (Mt. 27:48). “I thirst” would naturally have been said in a low voice, so that it could be heard only by those near the Cross.

That Jn. should have specially recorded this word is in keeping with the emphasis laid, throughout the Fourth Gospel, on the humanity of Jesus. As He asked the Samaritan woman for water when He was thirsty (4:7), so now. Jn. is anxious to expel Docetic doctrine (1 Jn. 4:2), and both here and at 19:34 he brings out recollections of the Beloved Disciple which forbid any theory of Christ’s Person that does not recognise His manhood. Jesus was thirsty at the Cross.

6. Τετέλεσται (Jn. 19:30). That after He had assuaged His thirst, Jesus uttered a loud cry, just before the end, is recorded Mk. 15:37, Mt. 27:50; cf. also Lk. 23:46. But the spectator upon whose testimony Jn. is dependent not only heard the cry, but identified the word spoken. This, for Jn., who sees all through the Passion the predestined march of events to the fulfilment of God’s purposes,¹ is the Great Word. Everything had happened as it did happen, in order that the Divine purpose, as foreshadowed in the O.T., might be accomplished (τελειωθῇ 19:28). And τετέλεσται marks this Consummation.

7. Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου (Lk. 23:46). Lk. specially notes that this was after the Great Cry (φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ), and that this was the last word spoken. To the utterance of faithful confidence from the ancient Psalm (31:5), the one word “Father” was prefixed, which charged it for future generations with a deeper meaning. In the Psalm, it is the trustful prayer of life; on the lips of Jesus (and thereafter; cf. Acts 7:59), it became a prayer of the dying. It is noteworthy that the two personal cries of Jesus from the Cross (Nos. 4 and 7) are old and familiar verses from the Psalter.

Jn. does not record this, but we cannot know his reason. If it was indeed the last word spoken, the Beloved Disciple must have heard it, as well as the witness, Joanna or another, from whom it was transmitted to Lk. It is just possible that the words of Jn. 19:30, παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα, contain a reminiscence of Lk.’s παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. But in any case Jn. never attempts to tell all that had happened, or all that he knew; his method is to select and arrange the sayings and acts of Jesus which best bring out the main thesis of his Gospel (20:31). And τετέλεσται is, in his scheme, the final word of the Cross.

Of other arrangements of the Seven Words, that of Tatian, our earliest harmonist, is the most noteworthy. It differs in one particular only from that which has been set out here. Tatian in his Diatessaron puts “Father, forgive them …” immediately before “Father, into thy hands …”; thus contradicting the order in which Lk. (who alone records them both) places the two sayings, “Father, forgive them” and “This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Bishop Andrewes in his Litania places our No. 3 before our No. 2, an arrangement adopted also in some German hymns. Certainty cannot be reached, but a clearer insight into the significance of these Words is gained by any honest attempt to reach the order in which they were spoken.

27. ἀπʼ ἐκείνης τῆς ὥρας, “from that hour.” It has been thought that this implies that Mary did not wait for the end, but that John led her away at once. It may have been so, but in that case John returned soon, for he is present at the Cross later (vv. 28–35). Cf. 11:53.

That Jn. does not mention the cry Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? which is reported by Mk. (15:34) followed by Mt. (27:46) as having been uttered “with a loud voice,” may perhaps be explained as due to the absence of the eye-witness at this point. The aged disciple recalls only his own personal experiences. Another possible explanation is that Jn. has omitted this saying, because he wishes to emphasise the voluntary character of Christ’s death. See on v. 30.

εἰς τὰ ἴδια, “to his own home.” The phrase is used thus Esth. 5:10, 3 Macc. 6:27, 37, 7:8, Acts 21:6, and it is the most natural meaning. It occurs twice elsewhere in Jn. (1:11, 16:32), where the sense is probably the same, but is not quite so clear as it is here (see note on 1:11). John brought the Virgin Mother to his own lodging¹ (see on 20:10), and she lived with him thereafter; but we cannot build on the phrase εἰς τὰ ἴδια a theory which would give him a house of residence at Jerusalem (see on 18:15).

28. μετὰ τοῦτο. The phrase does not convey that the incident of vv. 28–30 immediately followed on that of vv. 25–27. In fact, there was interposed the long interval of darkness and of silence, of which all the Synoptists speak as lasting for some three hours (Mk. 15:33, Mt. 27:45, Lk. 23:44). But it means, as it does elsewhere in Jn.² that the second incident was later than the first; whereas the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα does not carry the sense of strict chronological sequence so explicitly.

εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς κτλ. The same phrase occurs in 13:1, where in like manner it leads up to the statement that the appointed hour had come. He knew that “all things had now been finished,” ἤδη πάντα τετέλεσται. Jn. never allows his readers to forget that events which he records were eternally fore-ordained, and that Jesus was conscious of this. Primarily ἤδη πάντα τετέλεσται may have reference to the details of the Passion, and the Lord’s word τετέλεσται may be taken to mean that the Passion with its anguish and its sordid accompaniments was now over. And so “that the Scripture might be accomplished, Jesus said, I thirst.”

28, 29, 30. ἵνα τελειωθῇ ἡ γραφή. So A B L N WΓ. א D^suppΘ and fam. 13 have the more usual πληρωθῇ. Some have found a more complete consummation expressed by τελειωθῇ than πληρωθῇ would convey, but this is over subtle. If a reason is sought for the choice of the word τελειωθῇ, it may be found in the preceding τετέλεσται; τελεῖν suggesting τελειοῦν.

ἵνα τελ. ἡ γρ. probably refers to what follows, not to what precedes.¹ Jn. held that every incident of the Crucifixion took place as foreshadowed in the O.T. Scriptures, and that the Divine purpose as expressed therein might be accomplished. For him, the thirst of Jesus and its relief were foretold and fore-ordained in Ps. 69:21: εἰς τὴν δίψαν μου ἐπότισάν με ὄξος. That this is the passage in Jn.’s mind appears from the mention of ὄξος after the word διψῶ. The phrasing of the parallel narrative (Mk. 15:36), σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν, shows that Mk. (followed by Mt. 27:48) had the same passage from the Psalter in his thought. The ὄξος, or posca, was the sour wine which was the usual drink of the legionaries, some of which, according to Lk. (23:36), had already been offered by the soldiers to Jesus in mockery, as if it were a coronation cup.

It is not doubtful, however, that Jn. intends τετέλεσται to have a deeper significance than that the various incidents of the Passion were now finished. τετέλεσται is not a cry of relief that all is over; it is a shout of Victory. The mission of Redemption has now been perfected. See on 4:34. According to the Synoptists (see Additional Note on v. 26) τετέλεσται was cried “with a loud voice.” This may have some bearing on the request suggested in the preceding word διψῶ. Jesus may have desired that those who were present, the idle spectators and the soldiers as well as the faithful disciples, should understand that He counted His Death as a Victory. He may have wished to announce this publicly, so that all could hear. But if He was to speak now, after the long torture of the Cross, “with a loud voice,” His parched throat must be cooled. It was necessary that He should ask for drink. And so, ὅτε οὖν ἔλαβεν τὸ ὄξος, “when He had therefore taken the wine,” He cried Τετέλεσται, that all might know that great fact of which He was Himself assured, ἤδη πάντα τετέλεσται. It was this majestic word which seems specially to have impressed the centurion who was there. “When the centurion, which stood by over against Him, saw that He so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was a Son of God” (Mk. 15:39), “Certainly this was a righteous man” (Lk. 23:47). At any rate, Jn. regards it as the Final Word, and will add nothing to it.

But whether this connexion between the two words διψῶ and τετέλεσται be suggested by Jn. or no (and it may be thought over subtle), διψῶ must be taken in its plain meaning of physical thirst. This Jesus felt, and a merciful bystander relieved Him.

We are not to confuse this incident with the refusal by Jesus, before He was crucified, of the drugged wine which it was customary to offer criminals who were condemned to the Cross (Mk. 15:23, Mt. 27:34). The Talmudists say of this kindly custom “they gave them to drink a little frankincense in a cup of wine … that their understanding might be disordered.”¹ This Jesus refused because He willed to endure the Cross with full and unimpaired consciousness. But now all is finished. The work of redemption has been completed. It is no part of Christ’s revelation that the enduring of purposeless pain is meritorious. The pains of thirst were terrible to one exposed to the scorching heat of midday, while hanging naked on the Cross. And so Jesus said, “I thirst,” in His death-agony.

It would seem that some provision had been made for relieving the thirst of the dying men.

σκεῦος ἔκειτο ὄξους μεστόν, “a vessel full of vinegar was set there”; it was quite ready. Some have imagined that this also was a drugged potion, such as that of Mt. 27:34 (οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς), given with the view of hastening the death of the sufferers. But there is no ground for this in the evangelical narratives. Mt., who follows the words of Ps. 69:21, takes the word χολή from thence, this being the only place where χολή is mentioned in the Gospels, viz. in connexion with the draught offered to Jesus before He was crucified. Neither Mt. (see 27:48) nor any other evangelist mentions χολή in connexion with the final draught accepted by Jesus at the end. Barnabas (§ 7) says, indeed, σταυρωθεὶς ἐποτίζετο ὄξει καὶ χολῇ, but he probably had Mt. 27:34 rather than Mt. 27:48 in his mind. In any case, he is a confused writer, as is also the author of the Gospel of Peter who writes thus (§ 5): καί τις αὐτῶν εἶπεν Ποτίσατε αὐτὸν χολὴν μετὰ ὄξους· καὶ κεράσαντες ἐπότισαν. καὶ ἐπλήρωσαν πάντα, καὶ ἐτελείωσαν κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῶν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα. Nonnus (fifth cent.) suggests that Jesus asked for the draught in order that the end might come more quickly: νοήσας | ὅττι θοῶς τετέλεστο, θοώτερον ἤθελεν εἶναι. But there is no hint of such a motive in the canonical Gospels.

29. σκεῦος ἔκειτο ὄξους μεστόν. So A B L W 33, but the rec., with D^suppN Γ Δ Θ, adds οὖν after σκεῦος. For the next clause, σπόγγον οὖν μέστον τοῦ ὄξους (א^cB L W 33), the rec., with A D^suppN Γ Δ Θ, substitutes οἱ δὲ πλήσαντες σπόγγον ὄξους, καὶ … Θ fam. 13 interpolate μετὰ χολῆς καὶ ὑσσώπου after ὄξους, and Θ proceeds καὶ περιθέντες καλάμῳ προσήνεγκαν κτλ., these variants in the rec. text being derived from Mk. 15:36, Mt. 27:34, 48. The change in Θ of ὑσσώπῳ to καλάμῳ is evidently due to the difficulty felt by the scribe in the words ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες.

ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες. This would mean that the sponge filled with vinegar or sour wine was placed “on hyssop” and so conveyed to the mouth of Jesus as He hung on the Cross. But hyssop is not a plant which commonly provides sticks or reeds (if at all); bunches of it were used for sprinkling purposes (Ex. 12:22, Heb. 9:19), but while a sponge could be attached to a bunch of hyssop, some rod or stick would yet be needed to raise it up to the Cross. The Synoptists say nothing about hyssop, but both in Mt. 27:49 and Mk. 15:36 (cf. Lk. 23:37) we read σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ, i.e. they say that a bystander put the sponge on a reed or cane or stick, as it was natural to do.

Now in the eleventh century cursive No. 476 we find ὓσσῳ περιθέντες, the corruption of μχχωπεριθεντεχ into μχχωπωπεριθεντεχ being due to the repetition by the scribe of two letters ⲱⲡ. ὕσσος is the Latin pilum, of which each Roman soldier carried two; and the meaning of ὕσσῳ περιθέντες is that the bystanders put the sponge on the end of a soldier’s javelin or pilum, several of which were ready to hand (see on v. 34). This not only brings Jn. into correspondence with the περιθεὶς καλάμῳ of the Synoptists, but it reveals the personal observer. The man behind the story knew, for he had seen, to what kind of a stick the sponge was fastened; it was a ὓσσος, a soldier’s javelin.¹

30. κλίνας τήν κεφαλήν, “having bowed His head.” This detail is given only by Jn., and suggests that the account depends on the testimony of an eye-witness. κλίνειν τήν κεφαλήν occurs again in N.T. only at Mt. 8:20, Lk. 9:58, “The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.” The only restingplace for Him was the Cross. Abbott¹ argues that Jn. means here to imply that Jesus in death rested His head on the bosom of the Father. But this is to apply the allegorical method of Origen, and is quite unnecessary here.

παρέδωκεν τό πνεῦμα, “He gave up His spirit.” Mk. 15:37 and Lk. 23:46 have simply ἐξέπνευσεν, while Mt. 27:50 has ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα. παραδιδόναι is “to give up voluntarily” (see note on 6:64), and it may be that the verb is chosen deliberately, to emphasise the unique manner of the Lord’s death; cf. 10:18, “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up.”

Or, the expression παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα may carry a reminiscence of the Lord’s last words according to Lk. 23:46 παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. See Additional Note on p. 636.

Or, we may have here a covert allusion to Isa. 53:12: “He poured out His soul unto death,” which the LXX turns into the passive form παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, but which would more literally be rendered παρέδωκεν εἰς θάνατον τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ. When it is remembered that the next clause of Isa. 53:12 is “and He was numbered among the transgressors” (which is quoted as predictive of the Passion in Lk. 22:37), it is not improbable that Jn. is here translating directly from the Hebrew of Isa. 53:12, and that his intention is to describe the death of Jesus in the same words as those used by the prophet of the death of the Servant of Yahweh.² Isa. 53 is for Jn. a Messianic prophecy. See on 12:38.

In any case, the verb παραδιδόναι expresses a voluntary act, and is thus in contrast with the ἐξέπνευσεν of Mk. and Lk.

For the use of πνεῦμα, see on 11:33. It is not legitimate to lay any special emphasis on the employment here of πνεῦμα, as distinct from ψυχή, even if the suggestion made above that Isaiah’s “poured out His soul” suggested Jn.’s παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα be not adopted. Indeed in the second century Acts of John (§ 115) παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα is used of Jn.’s own death. So of the death of Agathonice by martyrdom it is said οὕτως ἀπέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐτελειώθη σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις;¹ and the same phrase is used of the martyrdom of Peter.²

The Piercing of the Lord’s Side, and the Fulfilment of Scripture (vv. 31–37)

31. The statement that the “Jews,” i.e. the Sanhedrists who had brought about the condemnation of Jesus, approached Pilate with the request that the death of those who had been crucified should be hastened, and their bodies removed, is peculiar to Jn. (see on v. 38). It has every mark of truth. Criminals crucified on a Friday might linger until the Sabbath, when they could not be buried, so that they would remain hanging on the Cross. But it was contrary to the Deuteronomic law that the dead bodies of criminals should remain on the cross after sunset (cf. Deut. 21:23, Josh. 8:29, 10:27). Accordingly, Josephus (B.J. IV. v. 2) tells us that the Jews of his time were careful to bury before sundown the bodies of those who had been crucified. Thus it was urgent, from the Sanhedrist’s point of view, that those crucified on a Friday should die on that day, and that their bodies should be removed forthwith. But this could be arranged only by an order from the Roman governor.

Now the usual Roman practice was to leave a corpse on its cross (cf. Horace, Epistles, I. xvi. 48), as in England the bodies of criminals used to be left hanging in chains. But there was no Roman law forbidding burial. Wetstein quotes Quintilian, Declam. vi., “omnes succiduntur, percussos sepeliri carnifex non uetat.” And Philo mentions that he had known of bodies being taken down from the cross and handed over to the relatives of the condemned for burial, on the occasion of the emperor’s birthday or the like (in Flacc. 10). Hence, although Pilate, in ordinary circumstances, might have refused the request of the Sanhedrists, there was nothing to prevent him from granting it if he wished. And, in this case, apart from his evident unwillingness to condemn Jesus, there was the further consideration that Jerusalem, at the moment, was crowded with pilgrims who had come for the Passover, and that it was desirable to avoid a conflict between the Jews and the Roman authorities.³

For Παρασκευή, see on v. 14 above. It was “Preparation” or “Friday,” doubly a day of preparation this year, because the Sabbath day following synchronised with “the first day of unleavened bread,” which was a “great” day. It is called a “holy” day in the LXX of Ex. 12:16, ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ πρώτη κληθήσεται ἁγία.

ἦν γὰρ μεγ. κτλ., “for the day of that sabbath was a great day,” ἐκείνου being emphatic. A D^suppO transfer the words ἐπεὶ παρασκευὴ ἦν to a position after σαββάτῳ, but א B L W fam. 13 support their more natural place at the beginning of the sentence after Ἰουδαῖοι. The Peshitta gives the paraphrase: “Because it was Preparation, they say, these bodies shall not remain on the Cross, because the sabbath dawneth.” ἐπεί is “because,” exactly as in the parallel passage Mk. 15:42 ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευή.

The crurifragium, or breaking of the limbs, was done by a heavy mallet; and terrible as such blows would be, if inflicted on a man in health and strength, they were merciful if they ended quickly the torture of a lingering death by crucifixion.

32. ἦλθον οὖν οἱ στρ. “Therefore,” sc. in obedience to the orders they received, “the soldiers came,” and broke the legs of the two robbers, who were not yet dead. The Gospel of Peter (which betrays knowledge of the Johannine narrative of the Passion) gives a curious turn to this incident. It represents the Jews as indignant with the penitent thief, because of his defence of Jesus’ innocence (cf. Lk. 23:41), and as commanding “that his bones should not be broken to the end that he might die in torment” (§ 4). This is inconsistent with what Pseudo-Peter says in § 3 about the illegality of allowing the bodies to remain on the crosses after sundown; but its interest is that it shows the freedom with which this apocryphal writer treats the Gospel narrative.

33. ὡς εἶδον ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα. Jesus died before the robbers did. According to Mk. 15:44, Pilate was surprised that He had died so soon; for in the case of a crucified person, death sometimes did not ensue for two or three days. A highly strung nature is less able to endure physical agony than one of coarser fibre; and Jesus was the Perfect Man. See above on v. 10.

34. This verse was introduced into St. Matthew’s Gospel at an early period. א B C L Γ, with some cursives, the Ethiopic vs., and several “mixed” Latin texts of the British and Irish type, supply at the end of Mt. 27:49 the words ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὓδωρ καὶ αἷμα. Mt. represents one of the bystanders (εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν) as offering Jesus the sponge of vinegar, while others were for waiting to see if Elijah would come to save Him. Then he adds the incident about the piercing of the Lord’s side, the apparent inference being that it was to render fruitless any intervention on the part of Elijah. As the verse occurs in Mt., it represents Jesus as alive, His death following with a loud cry immediately after the piercing. It has been held that Chrysostom supports this view; but an examination of his homily on Mt. 27:49 will show that it is not so, despite some confusion in the order of his comments. For although he mentions the piercing immediately after the giving of the vinegar, he adds: “What could be more brutal than these men, who carried their madness so far as to insult a dead body”; a comment which he briefly repeats on Jn. 19:34. Tatian has also been cited in support of the interpolation at Mt. 27:49, but there is no trace of it in the Diatessaron. The probability is that εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν of Mt. 27:48 recalled to a copyist εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν of Jn. 19:34 and suggested the interpolation. Perhaps Jn.’s ἀλλʼ εἷς was read as ἄλλος by the scribe of Mt. The theory that the passage was part of the original Mt.¹ (being omitted by the Syriac and O.L. vss. because of its inconsistency with Jn.), and that Jn. here silently corrects Mt. by placing the incident in its true context, is improbable, for there is no evidence to prove that Jn. knew Mt. at all.²

The rendering of the Latin Vulgate aperuit in this verse depends on a corruption of the Greek text. The true Greek reading is ἔνυξεν “pricked,” which is the basis of most of the O.L. vss., pupugit, perfodit, inseruit, etc. But the O.L. codices f and r have aperuit, which presumably indicates a Greek variant ἤνοιξεν “opened.” This was adopted by Jerome, and is supported by the Peshitta and the Jerusalem Syriac. But for the Greek ἤνοιξεν there is no MS. authority. Cod. 56 has ἤνυξε; Cod. 58 has ἔμυξε (corr. to ἔνυξε by a second hand); Cod. 68, the Evangelisteria 257, 259, and (according to Tischendorf) Cod. 225 have ἔνοιξε, all of which are natural corruptions of ἔνυξε, and it is plain that ἤνοιξεν was another corruption of the same kind.¹

εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν. Jn.’s general usage is to write εἷς ἐκ τῶν … (see on 1:40), but at 12:4, 18:22 as well as here ἐκ is omitted. Tradition gives the name Longinus to this soldier, probably because of the λόγχη (ἄπ. λεγ. in N.T.) or lancea which he carried.

νύσσειν (ἃπ. λεγ. in N.T.) is “to prod,” and is generally used of a light touch (e.g. Ecclus. 22:19 of pricking the eye, and 3 Macc. 5:14 of “prodding” a sleeping person to awake him). Field quotes a passage from Plutarch (Cleom. 37) where it is used of touching a man with a dagger to ascertain if he were dead, and he suggests that it is used similarly here.

On the other hand, νύσσειν is used of a spear wound which kills a man (e.g. Josephus, Bell. Jud. III. 7:35; cf. Acta Thomœ, § 165), and 20:25 indicates that the wound made in Jesus’ side was a large one. Origen (in Mt. 27:54) seems to say that a lance thrust was sometimes given as a coup de grâce to hasten the death of those who had been crucified. The language of the text suggests that the soldier was determined to make sure that Jesus was dead.

The λόγχῃ was a long slender spear, not so heavy as the ὓσσος (see v. 29) or pilum which was the usual weapon of the Roman legionaries. The ὓσσος had a barbed iron head, which would inflict a wide and deep wound. If we are to press the use of λόγχη here, it would fall in with the idea, which has been put forward, that the soldier’s act was a mere gesture as he passed; that he perceived Jesus to be dead, and so, without any special purpose, prodded the Body with his lance, the touch being possibly a light one.

The Ethiopic version (sæc. vi.) says that it was the right side of the Body that was pierced. This was widely accepted in ancient times (see e.g. Acta Pilati, B. xi.), and the incident is frequently represented thus in art, e.g. in the sixth-century Syriac Evangeliarium of Rabula at Florence.² The verse Jn. 19:34 is recited at the mixing of the chalice in several Eastern liturgies; and in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom the rubric preceding its recitation has the words, νύττων δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ δεξίῳ μέρει μετὰ τῆς λόγχης κτλ.³

ἐξῆλθεν εὐθύς. So א B L N W (cf. 13:30); the rec. has εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν. There is emphasis on εὐθύς; the “blood and water” flowed immediately. See on 5:9, and on 1:22.

That there should be a flow of blood from a dead body, when pierced with a spear, is abnormal; and various physical explanations have been offered. W. Stroud¹ suggested that the death of Jesus had been caused by rupture of the heart (which explains why it came so soon after His Crucifixion), and that the “blood and water” were the separated clot and serum of the escaped blood in the pericardial sac, which the lance had pierced. This assumes that the wound was on the left side, of which there is no evidence, tradition (whatever it be worth) indicating the right side.

Stroud’s arguments have not approved themselves to all physicians. It is objected, e.g. by Dr. C. Creighton,² that “the blood escaping into a serum cavity from rupture of a great organ” does not show any tendency to separate into clot and serum, “but remains thick dark-red blood.” Creighton suggests that the stroke of the spear may have been only a light touch (see above), directed to “something on the surface of the body, perhaps a discoloured wheal or exudation, such as the scourging might have left”; and that it “was a thoughtless rather than a brutal act,” Jesus already being dead. “Water not unmixed with blood from some such superficial source is conceivable, but blood and water from an internal source are a mystery.”

We have hardly sufficient data to reach an exact conclusion as to the cause of the gushing forth of blood and water from the wound; or as to the time—possibly a very short interval—which had elapsed since the Death of Jesus; but that blood and water were observed to flow is not doubtful.

It has, however, been frequently urged (e.g. by Westcott and Godet) that we must not expect a complete physical explanation of this incident; inasmuch as, according to the apostolic teaching, the Body of Christ did not suffer corruption after His Death (cf. Acts 2:31). He truly died (see on v. 30), but the physical changes which succeed death in our experience did not necessarily follow in His case. We may not assume that the Death of Christ was exactly like the death of an ordinary human being. This view of the matter was put forward by Origen. In dead bodies, he says, blood is clotted and water does not flow; but from the dead Body of Christ blood and water issued, and here was a miracle.³

The language of Jn. is compatible with this interpretation. In that case, the solemn attestation of v. 35 was added because Jn. regarded the incident as so extraordinary as to be difficult of credence. It had not been narrated by earlier evangelists, and exceptionally good testimony would be necessary if it were to be believed.

But it is more probable that Jn. regards the flow of blood and water from the pierced side of Jesus as a natural phenomenon, which he specially notes because he wishes to refute the Docetic doctrines prevalent when the Gospel was composed.¹ Alike in the Gospel and in the First Epistle he is anxious to lay stress on the true humanity of Christ (see on 1:14); and when telling of the Passion he would guard against the Docetism which treated the Body of Jesus as a mere phantom. We know from the second-century Acts of John, as well as from other sources, something of the curious teaching which denied humanity to Christ and explained His Crucifixion as an illusion. In this Docetic work (§ 101), Jesus is actually represented as saying that there was no real flow of blood from His Body; αἷμα ἐξ ἐμοῦ ῥεύσαντα καὶ οὐκ ἔρευσεν. In opposition to teaching of this kind, which goes back to the first century, Jn. is earnest in explaining that the Death of Jesus was a human death; His Body bled when it was pierced; it was no phantom.

In like manner, the language of the First Epistle is strongly anti-Docetic. “Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God,” the spirit which denies this being the spirit of antichrist (1 Jn. 4:2, 3). That the language of 1 Jn. 5:6, “This is He who came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and the blood,” carries a direct allusion to Jn. 19:34 is doubtful. Perhaps the words are sufficiently explained of the historic Baptism of Jesus and of His historic Crucifixion. But the whole passage is strikingly similar to Jn. 19:34, 35 in its insistence on the true humanity of Christ in the circumstances, alike, of His Life and His Death. This was what Jn. was most anxious to teach, viz. that the Man Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (20:31); and the incident recorded in Jn. 19:34 is so apposite in this connexion, as opposed to Docetic mysticism, that he calls attention to it by an emphatic and special attestation (v. 35).

One of the earliest extant comments on Jn. 19:34, is that of Irenæus, who takes this view of the evangelist’s purpose. To show the true humanity of Christ, Irenæus calls attention to His being hungry at the Temptation, to His being tired (Jn. 4:6), to His tears (Jn. 11:35), to His bloody sweat (Lk. 22:44), and lastly to the piercing of His side, when blood and water flowed forth. He concludes ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα σύμβολα σαρκός, τῆς ἀπὸ γῆς εἰλημμένης (c. Hær. III. xxii. 2; cf. IV. xxxiii. 2). It will be observed that Irenæus has no thought of a miracle here, nor does he proceed to find any mystical meaning in the incident.

All later fathers are concerned with the symbolism. Among them may be named Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis about 171, a contemporary of Irenæus. A fragment ascribed to him¹ runs as follows: ὁ τὴν ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐκκενθεὶς (cf. v. 37), ὁ ἐκχέας ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ τὰ δύο πάλιν καθάρσια, ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα, λόγον καὶ πνεῦμα. Here the Water and the Blood seem to correspond respectively to the Word and the Spirit (for it is arbitrary to suppose that the order is to be reversed), as they do in the famous Comma Johanneum about the Three Heavenly Witnesses; and this suggests a doubt as to the genuineness of the alleged quotation from Claudius Apollinaris. In any case, the writer holds that the Water and the Blood at the Crucifixion are “the two things that again purify,”² πάλιν probably referring to the purifications under the Old Covenant. He may have had in mind the dedication of the Covenant with Israel (Ex. 24:6f.), which in Heb. 9:19 is said to have been with the blood of the victims and with water (water is not mentioned in Ex. 24). The elder Lightfoot³ suggested that this was in the thought of the evangelist here, but there is no hint of anything of the kind in his words.

Tertullian finds in the water and the blood, symbols of the two kinds of baptism, that of the martyr being a baptism with blood (de Pud. 22). In another place, he suggests that there is a prefigurement of the two sacraments, which is the favourite comment of later theologians. The passage (de Bapt. 16) is the first which indicates a connexion with 1 Jn. 5:6, and must therefore be quoted in full: “Venerat enim per aquam et sanguinem, sicut Joannes scripsit, ut aqua tingerentur, sanguine glorificarentur, proinde nos faceret aqua vocatos, sanguine electos. Hos duos baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris emisit, quatenus qui in sanguinem eius crederent, aqua lavarentur, qui aqua lavissent, etiam sanguinem potarent.”⁴

35. This verse is omitted in e (Cod. Palatinus of the fifth century), nor does it appear in the rearrangement of the Gospel texts called fu (Cod. Fuldensis of the sixth century). From this slender evidence Blass¹ concluded that the verse was of doubtful genuineness, and must be treated as a later gloss. But such a conclusion is perverse in the face of the overwhelming mass of MSS and vss. which contain the passage, not to speak of its characteristically Johannine style.

ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκεν. Jn. lays much stress on “witness” (see Introd., pp. xc–xciii); and here the witness of the incident that has just been recorded is John the Beloved Disciple, who has been mentioned in v. 26 as having been present at the Cross. This is strictly parallel to 21:24, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων, where also the Beloved Disciple is the witness to whom appeal is made.

καὶ ἀληθινὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία. This is (as again at 21:24) the attestation of Jn. that the evidence of the Beloved Disciple is genuine and trustworthy (see on 1:10 for ἀληθινός).

καὶ ἐκεῖνος οἶδεν ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγει. Here, once more, we have a parallel at 21:24, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθῆς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν. Nonnus is so certain of the parallelism that he alters οἶδεν into ἴδμεν, i.e. οἶδαμεν as at 21:24. But the reference of ἐκεῖνος must be more closely examined.

It has been thought that ἐκεῖνος here designates the actual writer of the Gospel,² including this verse. ἐκεῖνος is used at Jn. 9:37 by the Speaker of Himself. A closer parallel is provided by Josephus. He writes of his doings in the third person, and says that once he had thoughts of escaping from the city, but that the people begged him to remain: οὐ φθόνῳ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτηρίας, ἔμοιγε δοκεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἐλπίδι τῆς ἐαυτῶν· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἠξιοῦν πείσεσθαι δεινὸν Ἰωσήπου μένοντος (Bell. Jud. iii. 7, 16). Here ἐκεῖνος is the author; and to those who accept the view that the Beloved Disciple was the writer of the Fourth Gospel as well as the witness to whom he appeals, the language of Josephus helps to justify the use of ἐκεῖνος in Jn. 19:35, although in Josephus it is markedly contrasted with ἐαυτῶν. Nevertheless, such a way of speaking would be curiously indirect here. If the writer is the eye-witness, he has already said of himself that his witness is trustworthy, and he does not strengthen his affirmation by repeating it in so awkward a fashion.

Grammatically, ἐκεῖνος is, indeed, resumptive of αὐτοῦ in the the preceding clause, being used for the sake of emphasis; cf. 7:29 ἐγὼ οἶδα αὐτόν, ὅτι παρʼ αὐτοῦ εἰμι, κἀκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν (see also 10:1, 6). As we take the words καὶ ἐκεῖνος οἶδεν ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγει, they are the words of the evangelist, but not of the witness; and the repetition is not meaningless. “He,” sc. the Beloved Disciple himself, “knows,” for he is yet alive, “that he is telling true things.” The evangelist’s tribute is his own, and so is not exactly like the certificate of 21:24 which is that of the elders of the Church. Jn. assures his readers that the aged apostle knows exactly what he is saying: ἐκεῖνος οἶδεν. The alteration by Nonnus of οἶδεν into ἴδμεν is a paraphrase which alters the sense.

A quite different explanation of ἐκεῖνος has been held by some critics¹ since the days of Erasmus. It is said to apply to Christ Himself, who may be appealed to as the Witness here, ἐκεῖνος being used absolutely of Him as it is in 1 Jn. 3:5, 16, where He has not been named in the immediate context. In 19:35, on this showing, ἐκεῖνος οἶδεν ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγει is a parenthetical observation, claiming the support of Christ for the testimony borne by the Beloved Disciple: “Jesus knows that he is telling the truth.” This is very unlike the manner of the author of the Fourth Gospel (although Paul has a similar asseveration, 2 Cor. 11:31). The same may be said of the attempt to refer ἐκεῖνος here to God the Father, as at 1:33, 5:19, 37, 6:29, 8:42, where ἐκεῖνος is undoubtedly used of Him. It might be thought more plausible to hold that ἐκεῖνος οἶδεν was an allusion here to the witness of the Paraclete (of whom ἐκεῖνος is used 14:26, 15:26, 16:13, 14); the words ἀλήθεια, μαρτυρεῖν, ὕδωρ, αἷμα being associated with the witness of the Spirit in 1 Jn. 5:6, 7. But we have seen already that the exegesis which refers 1 Jn. 5:6, 7 to Jn. 19:34 is improbable.

The fact is that there is nothing distinctive of Deity in the use of ἐκεῖνος by Jn. (see on 1:8). In the Fourth Gospel ἐκεῖνος stands in the same way for John the Baptist (5:35), or Moses (5:46), or the blind man (9:10), or Mary of Bethany (11:29, 20:15, 16), or Peter (18:17, 25), or the Beloved Disciple himself (13:25, 21:7, 23). The pronoun is a favourite one with Jn., and he uses it to express emphasis or for clearness irrespectively of the person to whom it is applied. Here we hold it to refer emphatically to the Beloved Disciple, whom we identify with the son of Zebedee.

ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς πιστεύητε. The rec. omits καί, but ins. א A B D^suppL N W Θ Again the rec., with א^aA D^suppN W Θ, has ἴνα … πιστεύητε, but א*B have ἵνα … πιστεύητε as at 20:31. The witness has borne his testimony about the blood and water, “in order that you also,” sc. the readers of the Gospel, “may believe,” not being misled by Docetic mysticism.

36. ἵνα ἡ γρ. πληρωθῇ … See Introd., pp. cxlix ff., for the significance of this formula, introducing a testimonium from the O.T. Here there is a free quotation of Ex. 12:46, “neither shall ye break a bone thereof”, sc. of the Passover lamb. Cf. also Num. 9:12. The passage Ps. 34:20, “He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken”, although there are verbal similarities, is not apposite to the context.

The Passover lamb of the ancient ritual was not only slain to provide a commemorative meal; it was an “oblation” (Num. 9:12), and it was not fitting that it should be mutilated. The offering must be perfect. This, to Jn., was a prophetic ordinance, and pointed forward to the manner of the death of Him who was the true Paschal Lamb. In this identification of Jesus with the Paschal Lamb, Paul is in agreement with Jn. “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).¹

37. καὶ πάλιν ἑτέρα γραφὴ λέγει. ἕτερος “different” does not appear again in Jn.

The manner of the Lord’s death was, according to Jn., in fulfilment both of type and prophecy; negatively, because His legs were not broken as the usual custom was in the case of crucified persons, so that the type of the Paschal Lamb might be fulfilled in Him; and positively, by the piercing of His side, as had been prophesied in Zech. 12:10 ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, “they shall look on Him whom they pierced”.

The LXX, reading רקדו for דקרו by an erroneous transposition of ר and ד, has the curious κατωρχήσαντο, “they danced insultingly”, instead of ἐξεκέντησαν, “they pierced,” which is the natural rendering of the Hebrew and is followed by Theodotion and Aquila, Symmachus having ἐπεξεκέντησαν. The same rendering is found in Rev. 1:7, where the prophecy is given a different turn and referred to the Second Advent, ὄψεται αὐτὸν πᾶς ὀφθαλμός, καὶ οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν. Justin uses similar words (with ἐκκεντεῖν) of the Second Advent (Apol. i. 52, Tryph. 64), and in Tryph. 32 distinguishes the two Advents, thus: δυὸ παρουσίας αὐτοῦ γενήσεσθαι ἐξηγησάμην, μιὰν μὲν ἐν ᾗ ἐξεκεντήθη ὑφʼ ὑμῶν, δευτέραν δὲ ὅτε ἐπιγνώσεσθε εἰς ὃν ἐξεκεντήσατε.

It is clear that Jn. did not use the LXX here, and while he may have translated independently from the Hebrew, it is more probable that he has adopted a version current in his time.

Abbott (Diat. 2318) suggests that Jn. means the prophecy to apply to the four soldiers (whom he fantastically supposes to represent the four quarters of the globe): “they shall look on Him whom they pierced”. But Zech. 12:10 refers in its original context to “the inhabitants of Jerusalem”; and it is more natural to take the Jews for the subject of “they shall look.” It was to the Jews that Jesus was delivered to be crucified (v. 16), and the “piercing” was, indirectly, their act.

38. μετὰ ταῦτα is the phrase by which Jn. introduces new sections of the narrative. See Introd., p. cviii.

Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας. Arimathæa is probably to be identified with the O.T. Ramathaim-Zophim (1 Sam. 1:1; cf. 1 Macc. 11:34), a place about 13 miles E.N.E. of Lydda, and about 60 miles from Jerusalem. Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrim, εὐσχήμων βουλευτής (Mk. 15:43), and rich (according to Mt. 27:57), Lk. 23:50 adding the information that he was a good and just man, who had not consented to the proceedings of his colleagues in the condemnation of Jesus. He was a disciple of Jesus, in the wider sense of μαθητής (cf. Mt. 27:57), although a secret one, κεκρυμμένος δὲ διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων (cf. 7:13, 9:22). Mk. only says of him that he was “looking for the kingdom of God.” Pseudo-Peter alleges that he was “a friend of Pilate and of the Lord.” But he was not a familiar figure among the disciples of Jesus, for the Galilæan women do not seem to have been acquainted with him: they only watched what he and his servants did at the tomb (Mk. 15:47). It was only after the Crucifixion that Joseph and Nicodemus avowed their discipleship by their solicitude for reverent treatment of the body of Jesus. Mk. notes that Joseph went to make his request to Pilate, τολμήσας “having plucked up his courage” (Mk. 15:43).

Joseph’s request and his subsequent action are narrated in all the Gospels (Mt. 27:57, Mk. 15:42, Lk. 23:50); in Pseudo-Peter (§ 2) the request is made in advance before the Crucifixion, and is referred to Herod before it is granted.

Turner has suggested¹ that Joseph’s petition to Pilate was made at the time when the deputation from the Sanhedrim asked that the death of the crucified persons should be hastened (see above on v. 31); and, although Jn. introduces v. 38 with μετὰ ταῦτα, this is more probable than the alternative that Pilate gave two separate audiences on the subject of the death of Jesus and the subsequent disposal of His body.

At any rate, Pilate acceded to the request of Joseph that the body of Jesus should be given him for burial, and made no difficulty about it. ἐδωρήσατο τὸ πτῶμα is Mk.’s phrase (Mk. 15:44): he gave the corpse freely. (Cf. Mk. 6:29, Mt. 14:12.)

ἦρεν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ. So א^cB L; the rec., with D^suppN Γ Δ Θ, has τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. W has αὐτόν. Jn. uses the word σῶμα only of a dead body (see Introd., p. clxx). Joseph arrived at the Cross before the soldiers had finished their task; cf. ἀρθῶσιν, v. 31.

א*B W read ἕλιγμα, “a roll,” but this is probably a corruption of μῖγμα, “a mixture” or “confection” (cf. Ecclus. 38:8), which all other MS. authorities support, two cursives giving σμίγμα or σμήγμα. Probably the original was χμιγμα which could easily be corrupted into ⲉⲗⲓⲅⲙⲁ. Neither word occurs elsewhere in N.T.

For Nicodemus see on 3:1: he is described here as ὁ ἐλθὼν πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτὸς τὸ πρῶτον, recalling his former interview with Jesus (see on 7:50). It has been suggested that he is to be identified with Joseph of Arimathæa,² which has no more probability than the fancy that he is only an ideal character invented by Jn. (see on 3:1). In this passage he is represented as assisting Joseph of Arimathæa in the preparation of the Body of Jesus for burial, after Pilate had given his permission; but with that timid caution which was a characteristic (see on 7:50) he does not seem himself to have approached Pilate in the first instance. Nicodemus was probably a rich man, for a hundred pounds weight of spicery was a costly gift. It is not said that Nicodemus bought the spices for this special purpose (there would have been little time for that); probably he brought them from his own house.

The myrrh was a sweet-smelling gum which was mixed with the powdered aromatic wood of aloes. Myrrh and aloes are mentioned together as forming a fragrant mixture or confection several times in the O.T. (Ps. 45:8, Prov. 7:17, Cant. 4:14). The use of such spices, when a dead body was placed with honour in its sepulchre, is mentioned in connexion with the burial of King Asa (2 Chron. 16:14). They appear also to have been used for embalming, but nothing is said of such an intention in this case.

There was little time before the Sabbath came on, and no final disposition of the Body in its resting-place was attempted. Pseudo-Peter says that it was washed, which may be only an imaginative addition to the narrative. It was not anointed; the anointing (cf. Mk. 14:8, Mt. 26:12) was postponed until the day after the Sabbath, when the women came to do it, having bought spices on their own account (Mk. 16:1, Lk. 24:1).

40. ἐλαβον οὖν κτλ. “Then they took the body of Jesus,” i.e. Joseph and Nicodemus. Mk., followed by Mt., tells that Mary Magdalene and Mary the wife of Clopas were present at the burial; they had been at the Cross (as Jn. has told already, v. 25), and they waited until the end. Salome was also at the Cross (see on v. 25), but she may have accompanied her sister Mary the Mother of Jesus when she left the scene (v. 27); at any rate, she is not mentioned by name as having been at the burial (cf. Lk. 23:55).

ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, “they bound it with strips of cloth, with the spices”; apparently the spices were scattered freely between the folds of the cloths, and the body was embedded in them.¹ It was the custom of the Jews (as distinct from that of the Egyptians) to bury (ἐνταφιάζειν; cf. Gen. 50:2 where this word is used of the embalming of Jacob) in this way. Cf. Jn. 11:44 for the “swathes” (κειρίαι) with which Lazarus had been bound.

The word ὀθόνιον “linen cloth,” occurs again only 20:5, 6, 7 and Lk. 24:12 (cf. Judg. 14:13). The Synoptists in their accounts of the burial have the word σινδών. Milligan (s.v.) cites the use of ὀθόνιον in papyri for burial linen, or for the wrappings of a mummy.

41. ἦν δὲ ἐν τῷ τόπῷ ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη κῆπος. None of the Synoptists mention a garden (see for κῆπος on 18:1) as the place of burial. This, with the detail that it was “in” the place of Crucifixion, is peculiar to Jn. (For the use of the impf. ἦν, see on 11:18.) There was no time to lose, and this garden was near Golgotha. Mt. 27:60 adds that the tomb in the garden belonged to Joseph of Arimathæa, but this is not in Mk., Lk., or Jn., although it may have been the case. Pseudo-Peter explicitly says that the garden bore the name κῆπος Ἰωσήφ. Two instances of royal tombs in gardens are given 2 Kings 21:18, 26, and the LXX of Neh. 3:16 makes mention of κήπος τάφου Δαυείδ. Milligan (s.v.) cites κηποτάφιον “a tomb in a garden,” from a papyrus of 5 b.c.

ἐν τῷ κηπῷ μνημεῖον καινόν (D^suppN 69 give κενόν), ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἦν τεθειμένος. Mk. 15:46 has “a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock,” which Mt. 27:60 follows: adding (as Jn. does) that the tomb was καινόν. Lk. also says (23:53) that the tomb was λαξευτόν, adding οὗ οὐκ ἦν οὐδεὶς οὔπω κείμενος. Thus Jn. agrees with Lk. in saying that the tomb had not been used before, and he uses almost the same words, substituting οὐδέπω for οὔπω (cf. 20:9).

42. ἐκεῖ οὖν κτλ., “there then, because the tomb was near, they laid Him.”

διὰ τὴν Παρασκευὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων. This was the reason that made delay impossible. The “Preparation” was at hand. This may mean either “the Preparation for the Sabbath,” i.e. Friday, or “the Preparation for the Passover.” It has been pointed out on 19:14 that elsewhere in the N.T. παρασκευή always means Friday; and this gives a good sense here. But inasmuch as in this passage the words τῶν Ἰουδαίων follow, an addition which Jn. always makes when speaking of the Passover festivals (see 2:13, 6:4, 11:55), it may be that we are to lay stress on τήν which precedes παρασκευήν (see on 19:14) and understand him here to say “the Preparation of the Passover.” The meaning of the passage is not altered in any case, for both on account of the impending Sabbath and of the impending Passover Feast, it was necessary that the burial should be hastened.

Field rightly calls attention to the solemn and stately cadences of the rendering of this verse in the R.V.: “There then because of the Jews’ Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus.”

20:1 ff. The narrative in Jn. 20 of the appearances of Christ after His Resurrection, like the narrative in Lk. 24 and the Marcan Appendix, tells only of appearances in Jerusalem or its immediate neighbourhood. On the other hand, the narrative of Mt. 28:16f. tells of an appearance in Galilee, and in this it probably follows the Lost Conclusion of Mk. The Appendix to Jn. (c. 21) also lays the scene of a manifestation of Christ in Galilee. There are thus two traditions as to the appearances of the Risen Lord: one which places them in Jerusalem, and another which places them in Galilee. It may be impossible, from the evidence at our disposal, to construct a complete table which shall indicate the order in which they occurred; but there is no inherent difficulty in the circumstance that they were not all observed in the same locality. If it be accepted that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, it was as easy for Him to manifest Himself to His disciples in Jerusalem and in Galilee, as in Jerusalem only or in Galilee only. The Jerusalem tradition is followed in c. 20, with the addition of particulars which no other authority gives, and which may plausibly be referred to the eye-witness whose testimony is behind the narrative. In c. 21 we have a version of the Galilæan tradition (see p. 690 f.).

1. τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων … πρωΐ, σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης. Mk. 16:2 says in like manner, λίαν πρωῒ τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων. For πρωΐ, see on 18:28. Lk. 24:1 and Mt. 28:1 agree in mentioning “the first day of the week, “and in describing the visit to the tomb as being made in the half-light just before dawn.

Jn. names Mary Magdalene only as visiting the tomb, but the plur. οἴδαμεν of v. 2 suggests that she was not alone, and that her perplexity as to how the Lord’s body had been disposed of was shared by others. It is unlikely that a woman would have ventured by herself outside the city walls before daylight, and the Synoptists agree in telling that she was accompanied by others. Mk. 16:1 names as her companions Mary the mother of James (i.e. the wife of Clopas; see on 2:12) and Salome, the Virgin’s sister, who were also present at the Crucifixion with her (19:25). Mt. 28:1 only names “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.” Lk. 24:10 mentions “Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women.” Pseudo-Peter (§ 11) also notes that Mary Magdalene was accompanied by other women.

Jn. does not say what the purpose of this visit to the tomb was; and in this he is in agreement with Mt. 28:1, where it is merely told that they went “to see the sepulchre.” But Mk. 16:1 and Lk. 23:56, 24:1 explain that the purpose of the women was to anoint the body of Jesus. In Jn.’s narrative (see 19:39) the body was hastily laid in spices on the Day of Crucifixion by Joseph and Nicodemus, but there was no time for any anointing then, or final disposition of the body. Nothing further could be done on the Sabbath, and the women came as early as possible the next morning, with the spices and unguents that they had provided for themselves (Mk. 16:1, Lk. 23:56).¹

We hold that Mary Magdalene is the same person as Mary of Bethany (see Additional Note on 12:1–8); and her desire to anoint the body of her Master is thus significant in connexion with His words to her when she anointed His feet at Bethany (12:7). She had kept the ointment “against the day of His burying.” Jn., however, does not introduce this point expressly. He narrates Mary’s visit to the tomb briefly, because what he is anxious to describe is the subsequent visit of Peter and the Beloved Disciple, which was suggested by her report.

Both Mk. and Lk. agree with Jn. in the statement that Mary (and the other women) found the stone taken away from the tomb. For τὸν λίθον ἠρμένον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου, see on 11:38, 39.

According to the Johannine narrative, Mary does not suspect as yet that anything out of the ordinary course of nature has happened. She sees that the stone which sealed the sepulchre has been removed, and (seemingly) she looks in to assure herself that the tomb is empty² (v. 2); but her inference is only that the body has been removed to some other resting-place.

2. τρέχει οὖν κτλ. The haste with which the women ran back from the tomb is mentioned also Mk. 16:8, Mt. 28:8.

ἔρχεται πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον. Peter was still, despite his denial of Jesus, reckoned as the leader, or at any rate as one of the leaders, of the disciples; and so it is naturally to him that the surprising news of the tomb being empty is carried first. He has not been mentioned since 18:27; and so on his reappearance in the narrative, Jn., according to his habit (see on 18:15), gives his full name Simon Peter. The names of the disciples to whom the women brought the news are not specified in Mt. 28:8; but cf. Lk. 24:12.

καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον μαθητήν κτλ. As Bengel observes, the repetition of πρός indicates that Peter and “the other disciple” were not lodging in the same house. The women had to visit them separately. Cf. πρὸς αὑτούς of v. 10, and see 19:27.

ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς. See 13:23, and cf. 21:17. This association of Peter and the “Beloved Disciple” is significant, in view of the identification of the Beloved Disciple with John, the son of Zebedee. See Introd., pp. xxxiv ff.

῏Ηραν τὸν κύριον κτλ., “they have taken away the Lord from the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” The subject of ἦραν is indefinite; Mary and her companions did not know who they were. For the designation of Jesus as “the Lord,” see the note on 4:1.

The plur. οἴδαμεν, as has been noted on v. 1, suggests that Mary was speaking for her companions as well as for herself.

3. Peter takes the lead, more suo. ἐξῆλθεν οὗν ὁ Πέτρος καὶ ὁ ἄλλος μαθητής. For the singular verb ἐξῆλθεν, see Mt. 28:1.

In the Musée du Luxembourg at Paris there is a remarkable picture by E. Burnand of Peter and his young companion hastening to the sepulchre, which will repay examination.

4. ἔτρεχον δέ κτλ., “So they began to run, the two together, and the other disciple ran on in front more quickly than Peter.” προτρέχειν occurs again in N.T. only at Lk. 19:4. Cf. 1 Macc. 16:21.

καὶ ἦλθεν πρῶτος κτλ. The Beloved Disciple was probably the younger man of the two.

5. καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια. This sentence invites comparison with the parallel passage Lk. 24:12 in the rec. text, viz.: ὁ δέ Πέτρος ἀναστὰς ἔδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα μόνα· καὶ ἀπῆλθε πρὸς αὑτὸν, θαυμάζων τὸ γεγονός. With ἀπῆλθε πρὸς αὑτόν cf. Jn. 20:10, ἀπῆλθον οὖν πάλιν πρὸς αὑτοὺς οἱ μαθηταί.

The verse Lk. 24:12 is found in א A B L Γ Δ Θ, the old and the Pesh. Syriac, and in c f ff₂, a strong combination. It is omitted in D a b e l r ful etc., and on that account Westcott-Hort place it in double brackets, treating it as a “Western non-interpolation.” They regard it as “condensed and simplified” from Jn. 20:5–9, θαυμάζων τὸ γεγονός being added to the Johannine account. Yet Hort’s view of what he calls “Western non-interpolations” is not universally accepted;¹ and, in this instance, it is hard to believe that a scribe would be bold enough to alter so materially a statement made in the Fourth Gospel after it had received general acceptance,² and thus to omit all mention of the Beloved Disciple as Peter’s companion. On the contrary, the evidence for Lk. 24:12 being part of the original text of Lk. is too strong to be set aside by the authority of D, an admittedly eccentric manuscript; and the true inference from the verbal similarities between Lk. 24:12 and Jn. 20:5 seems to be that Jn., here as often elsewhere (see Introd., p. xcix), is using Lk.’s words for the purpose of correcting him. It was not Peter, he says, who peeped into the tomb and saw the linen wrappings lying on the ground, but it was the Beloved Disciple, who had arrived at the tomb before Peter did. He retains the words of Lk. so as to make it clear that he is dealing with the same incident, but he corrects the narrative of Lk. in so far as Peter is represented as being alone. Thus “he went home” in Lk. 24:12 becomes “the disciples went home” in Jn. 20:10.

The difference between Lk. and Jn. is that between a man who is reproducing a generally accepted tradition, and that of an author relying on and reproducing what he has been told by an eye-witness of, and a participator in, the events narrated. Lk., indeed, implies at 24:24 that he had heard that more than one disciple had gone to the tomb to verify the women’s report that it was empty; but there is no reason to think that he alludes there to the visit of Peter and John. Pseudo-Peter says there were many visitors to the sepulchre.

παρακύψας βλέπει. παρακύπτειν, in its primary and etymological meaning, would suggest “to stoop down for the purpose of looking.”³ But in this sense the verb is seldom used, and in the LXX it always means “to peep” through a door or a window (cf. Gen. 26:8, Judg. 5:28, 1 Kings 6:4, 1 Chron. 15:29, Prov. 7:6, Cant. 2:9, Ecclus. 14:23, 21:23), without any stooping being implied⁴ Cf. also Jas. 1:25, 1 Pet. 1:12. Nor does the word imply an earnest or searching gaze.⁵ The Beloved Disciple “peeped in and saw” is the rendering which best gives the sense.

κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια (see on 19:40 for ὀθόνια). The participle κείμενα is put first for emphasis. What startled the disciple was that he saw the grave-cloths lying on the ground. If the body had been removed to some other resting-place, as Mary had suggested, it would presumably have been removed as it had been originally prepared for burial. The cloths would also have disappeared.¹

οὐ μέντοι (for μέντοι, see on 12:42) εἰσῆλθεν. That the first disciple to note the presence of the grave-cloths in the tomb did not actually go into it first is not a matter that would seem worth noting, to any one except the man who himself refrained from entering. This strongly suggests that we are dealing with the narrative of an eye-witness. As to why John (for we believe the disciple to have been John) waited for Peter to go in first, we do not know. He may have been afraid, or overcome with emotion. Peter was a man of coarser fibre, more hasty, and more ready to put himself forward. That may be the whole explanation.

6. Peter’s part in what happened is now resumed, and so he is given his full name Σίμων Πέτρος (cf. v. 2, and see on 18:15). He did not hesitate, but entered the tomb at once.

καὶ θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, “and notices (he did not merely glance in: see on 2:23, 9:8 for θεωρεῖν) the linen cloths lying.” In the parallel passage, Lk. 24:12, we have βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα μόνα. Jn. leaves out μόνα, but explains carefully in v. 7 what it means in this context.

7. τὸ σουδάριον. See on 11:44. The napkin for the head was not lying with the grave-cloths for the body.

ἀλλὰ χωρὶς ἐντετυλιγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον. ἐντυλίσσειν is a rare verb, not found in the LXX; and in the parallels Mt. 27:59, Lk. 23:53 (not again in N.T.) it is used of wrapping the body of Jesus in a cloth, ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι. Here it is the head-covering itself or “napkin” that is “rolled up.” Latham believes that the language in vv. 6, 7 implies that the body had withdrawn from the grave-cloths, the swathes, and the turban-like napkin; the body-cloths being thus not scattered about, but lying flat, and the napkin, retaining the shape into which it had been wound (so as to cover the head), lying where the head had been. This is reverently and suggestively worked out in The Risen Master (pp. 39, 89); but it cannot be regarded as certain.

Milligan (s.v. ἐντυλίσσω) cites a remarkable verbal parallel from a third-century magical papyrus, ἐντύλισσε τὰ φύλλα ἐν σουδαρίῳ καινῷ.

8. τότε οὖν εἰσῆλθεν κτλ. Peter may have told John what he saw; at any rate, John no longer refrained from entering the tomb, “and he saw and believed” (εἶδεν καὶ ἐπίστευσεν). He had no vision of the Risen Christ, but the sight of the abandoned grave-cloths was sufficient to assure him that Jesus had risen from the dead. Jn. (16:16) and the Synoptists (Mk. 8:31, 9:9, 31, 10:34 with parallels) agree in telling that Jesus had, on one occasion or another, assured the disciples that He would rise from the grave, and that they would see Him again. They had not understood or appreciated what He meant. But when John, the Beloved Disciple, saw the grave-cloths and the napkin in the tomb, the meaning of the strange predictions to which he had listened came to him with a flash of insight. “He saw and believed.” This was a moment in his inner life, which was so charged with consequence, that he could never forget it, and the incident is recorded here as explaining how and when it was that he reached the fulness of Christian faith. That he “believed” without “seeing” his Risen Lord was in marked contrast to the attitude of Thomas, to whom it was said, “Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed” (v. 29).

ἐπίστευσεν. Syr. sin. has “they believed,” and 69, 124 give ἐπίστευσαν, a mistaken correction due to a desire to include Peter as also “believing.” For, although Peter “believed,” it seems to have been after the Risen Christ had appeared to him (Lk. 24:34, 1 Cor. 15:5), and not after his first glance at the tomb. He went away, according to Lk. 24:12, “wondering at that which was come to pass.”

D^supp has the eccentric reading οὐκ ἐπίστευσεν, the scribe being misled by the words which follow.

For πιστεύειν used absolutely, without the object of belief being specified, see on 1:7.

9. οὐδέπω (cf. 19:41) γὰρ ᾔδεισαν τὴν γραφήν. γάρ is often used by Jn. to introduce a comment on incidents or words which have been recorded (cf. e.g. 3:16 and 5:21). Here γάρ does not introduce the reason for, or explanation of, the faith of John. Its meaning is, “You must remember that,” etc. Jn. is thinking of his readers, who may be surprised that Peter and the Beloved Disciple were not more quick to recognise what had happened. “You must remember that they did not yet know (i.e. understand) the scripture which had foretold the Resurrection of Christ.”

ᾔδεισαν is used as in Mk. 12:24 μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς, “not appreciating the meaning of the scriptures.”

The γραφή, or particular passage of Scripture in the evangelist’s mind, was probably Ps. 16:10 (see on 2:22).

ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι. The Divine necessity which determined the course of Christ’s Ministry, Passion, and Resurrection has been often indicated by Jn.; see on 3:14 for Jn.’s use of δεῖ in this connexion, and cf. 2:4. That the Scriptures must be “fulfilled” is fundamental in Jn.’s thought; see Introd., pp. cxlix–clvi.

10. ἀπῆλθον οὖν πάλιν κτλ. “Dans un trouble extrême” is Renan’s description of their state of mind. But for this there is no evidence. Lk. 24:12 describes Peter as bewildered rather than troubled, while Jn. 20:8 records that the Beloved Disciple’s faith in the Risen Christ was already assured.

προς αὑτούς, i.e. chez eux, “to their lodgings.” John had brought the Virgin Mother εἰς τὰ ἴδια (19:27), and nothing could be more probable than that he should bring the wonderful news to her without any delay, as it is here recorded that he did.

πρὸς αὑτούς is used in a similar way by Josephus (Antt. viii. iv. 6), πρὸς αὑτοὺς … ἀπῄεσαν, “they returned home.”

The Appearance of Christ to Mary and Her Report to the Disciples (vv. 11–18)

11. Μαριάμ δὲ εἱστήκει κτλ. For the spelling Μαριάμ (here supported by אO 1, 33), see on 19:25; and for εἱστήκει, see on 1:35.

Mary, according to Jn., had returned to the tomb, after she had told Peter and John that it had been found empty. She “was standing by the tomb outside, weeping.” πρὸς τῷ μνημείῳ ἔξω κλαίουσα is read by A B D^suppL N W, as against πρὸς τὸ μνημεῖον κλαῖουσα ἔξω of the rec. text. א has ἐν τῷ μνημείῳ, which is inconsistent with ἔξω. Mary is not represented by Jn. as having entered the tomb at all.

For κλαίειν, see above on 11:31, where it is the verb used of Mary’s weeping at the tomb of Lazarus; an interesting correspondence in connexion with the identity of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany (see Introductory Note on 12:1–8).

As she wept, she “peeped” into the tomb. For παρακύπτω see on v. 5.

12. καὶ θεωρεῖ δύο ἀγγέλους κτλ., “and she notices (see on 2:23 and esp. v. 14 below) two angels in white” (ἐν λευκοῖς ἱματίοις being understood, the Greek idiom being the same as the English) “sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.”

All four Gospels agree in telling of an angelic appearance to the women at the tomb, but there are discrepancies in the various accounts. In Mk. 16:5 the women “entering into the tomb, saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe”; in Mt. 28:2f. the women (apparently) see an angel descending from heaven who rolls away the stone from the tomb and sits upon it As in Mk., he tells the women that Jesus is risen, and has gone into Galilee. In Lk. 24:4, after the women have entered the tomb and found it empty, “two men stood by them in dazzling apparel,” who remind them that when Jesus “was yet in Galilee” He had predicted that He would rise on the third day. The Marcan saying about the risen Lord having gone to Galilee is thus altered by Lk., who mentions no Galilæan appearance, and follows a Jerusalem tradition. It is noteworthy that “two men in white apparel” are mentioned again by Lk. in Acts 1:10, as appearing to the apostles at the Ascension. In Jn. we have “two angels in white,” who only ask Mary why she is weeping. They do not give any message or counsel, for Jesus Himself is immediately seen by Mary.

It was a common belief that angels or celestial visitants were clad in white. Cf. Dan. 10:5 εἶς ἐνδεδυμένος βύσσινα, and Ezek. 9:2; Rev. 15:6 ἄγγελοι … ἐνδεδυμένοι λίνον καθαρὸν καὶ λαμπρόν. In Enoch lxxxvii. 2 mention is made of beings coming forth from heaven “who were like white men.” Mk. and Mt. only mention one angel, but Lk. and Jn. mention two. The appearance of a pair of angels seems to be a not unusual feature of what were believed to be heavenly visitations; e.g. in 2 Macc. 3:26 two young men appeared to Heliodorus, “splendid in their apparel” (διαπρεπεῖς τὴν περιβολήν). So, too, in the Apocalypse of Peter (§ 3) two men suddenly appeared, καὶ φωτεινὸν ἦν αὐτῶν ὅλον τὸ ἔνδυμα. The development of legend is well illustrated by the fanciful narrative which is found in the Gospel of Peter of the appearances at the sepulchre. First (§ 9) the soldiers saw “three men coming out of the tomb, two of them supporting the other,” i.e. two angels supporting Christ. Then (§ 10) the heavens are opened and “a man descended and entered the sepulchre”; and (§ 11) when Mary and her companions look into the tomb “they see there a young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, fair and clothed with an exceeding bright robe,” who speaks to them as in Mk.

That Mary reported having seen and addressed two persons at the tomb, whom the evangelist calls “angels,” is all that is involved in the Johannine narrative. Lk. also tells of two men, but Mk. of one man only. What really happened is not possible now to determine. That the women saw some person or persons at the tomb can hardly be doubted; and that they were heavenly or angelic visitants was evidently the belief of Mt. and, probably also, of Lk. and Jn. Latham supposes them to have been members of the Essene sect who were accustomed to wear white clothing, or “young men of the priestly school.”¹ But there is no sufficient evidence of this.

ἕνα πρὸς τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ ἕνα πρὸς τοῖς ποσίν. Wetstein observes that as the body of Jesus had hung between two thieves on the Cross, so the place where His body had lain was guarded between two angels; and he recalls the cherubim on the mercy-seat (Ex. 25:22, 1 Sam. 4:4, Ps. 80:1, etc.). But there is no evidence of such thoughts being those of the evangelist

13. καὶ (א a b d f g sah om. καί) λέγουσιν κτλ. All they say is “Woman, why are you weeping?” There is nothing in the Johannine narrative of any counsel given by the watchers at the tomb, or (except the use of the word “angels”) any hint that they were not ordinary men. In the other Gospels, the women are represented as being terrified when addressed by the angels at the tomb; but in Jn. Mary shows no fear, nor does she indicate by her demeanour that she has seen anything unusual. She answers her questioners quite simply, by telling them why she is in grief. The story, so far, has nothing of the miraculous about it; and it probably represents a tradition more primitive than that of the other Gospels, in that it may go back to Mary herself

῏Ηραν τὸν κύριον κτλ., repeated from v. 2 with the significant addition of μοῦ after κύριον.

οὐκ οἶδα, not οἴδαμεν as in v. 2, for the other women were not with Mary on this, her second, visit to the tomb.

14. ταῦτα εἰποῦσα κτλ. So א A B D N W Θ, but the rec. prefixes καί. The absence of connecting particles in vv. 14–18 is noteworthy.

For εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω cf. 6:66, 18:6. Mary turned round, perhaps being half-conscious (as often happens) that some one was behind her.

καὶ θεωρεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἑστῶτα, “and notices Jesus standing.” The two watchers in the tomb had been seated. θεωρεῖν (cf. v. 12, and see on 2:23) is the verb used in the promise to the disciples ὑμεῖς θεωρεῖτέ με (14:19). Such “seeing” would be impossible for unbelievers; it was a vision possible only for faith.

καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστίν. She did not recognise Him. A similar thing in like words is told of the disciples on the lake (21:4); and of the two on the way to Emmaus (Lk. 24:16). The Marcan Appendix says of this latter incident that He was “manifested in another form” (ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, Mk. 16:12). Cf. Mt. 28:17, where “some doubted.” See further on 21:4.

This appearance of the Risen Lord to Mary is not mentioned by Lk., but the Marcan Appendix (Mk. 16:9) agrees with the Fourth Gospel in mentioning it as the first manifestation of Jesus after His Resurrection. Cf. Mt. 28:9, 10.

An essential difference between the Gospel stories of visions of the Risen Lord, and the stories widespread in all countries and in all times of visions of departed friends after death, is that all the Gospels lay stress on the empty tomb.¹ It was the actual body that had been buried which was revivified, although (as it seems) transfigured, and, so to speak, spiritualised. This must be borne in mind when the evangelical narratives of the Risen Jesus speaking, and eating (Lk. 24:43; cf. Jn. 21:13, 15), and being touched (Lk. 24:39, and perhaps Jn. 20:27) as well as seen, are examined critically. Such statements are difficult of credence, for no parallel cases are reported in ordinary human experience; but they must be taken in connexion with the repeated affirmations of the Gospels that the tomb of Jesus was empty, and that it was His Body and not only His Spirit which was manifested to the disciples. See also on v. 20.

The question has been asked, how did the evangelists believe the Risen Lord to have been clothed, not only when Mary saw Him in the garden, but when He manifested Himself to the assembled disciples (vv. 19, 26)? It is difficult to suppose (with Tholuck and others) that He appeared only in the loincloth in which He had been crucified and buried. His appearances after death were more intense, indeed, than the appearances of dead men to their friends (for which there is some evidence); but just as in the latter case the eye of love clothes the vision in familiar garments, so it may have been in the more objective and more significant manifestations of the risen body of Jesus.

15. λέγει αὐτῇ Ἰησοῦς. א B L W om. the rec. ὁ before Ἰησοῦς (see on 1:29, 50).

Γύναι, τί κλαίεις; This is a repetition of the question put to Mary (v. 13) by the watchers at the tomb. In like manner, in Mt. 28:7, 10 the message given by the angel to the women is repeated by the risen Jesus, when they see Him. But, whether this be only a coincidence or no, in the Johannine story Jesus adds τίνα ξητεῖς; He knew whom she was seeking, and what was the cause of her grief, whereas there is nothing in vv. 11–13 to show that the watchers at the tomb understood her tears, or knew that she was a disciple of Jesus.

Mary does not recognise Jesus at once, nor do His first words tell her who He was. She thinks He may be the gardener, probably because at so early an hour the gardener was the most likely person to be met in the garden (see 19:41). It is plain, however, that she does not find anything abnormal in the appearance or dress or voice of Him who speaks to her.

ὁ κηπουρός. The word does not occur again in the Greek Bible, but is common in the papyri (see Milligan s.v.).¹

Κύριε (an ordinary title of respect), εἰ σὺ ἐβάστασας αὐτόν. “Sir, if you have stolen Him away.” Her mind is so full of her quest, that she does not answer the question “For whom are you looking?” She assumes that every one must know who it is For βαστάζειν in the sense of “to steal,” see on 12:6.

εἰπέ μοι ποῦ ἔθηκας αὐτόν κτλ., “tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” She does not stay to consider if she would have strength by herself to remove the body to a fitting resting-place.

16. λέγει αὐτῇ Ἰησοῦς. Here (see on v. 15) B D om ὁ before Ἰησοῦς, but ins. א A N W Γ Δ.

Apparently Mary had turned her face away from Jesus towards the tomb, taking no interest in the gardener who gave her no help in her quest; for when she hears her name, she turns round again (στραφεῖσα) in amazement. Who is this that calls her “Mary”? The personal name, addressed to her directly, in well remembered tones, reveals to her in a flash who the speaker is.

λέγει αὐτῷ Ἑβραϊστί. So א B D N W Θ, although the rec., with AΓ, om. Ἑβραϊστί. Mary addresses Jesus in the Aramaic dialect which they were accustomed to use. See on 5:2 for Ἑβραϊστί.

Ῥαββουνεί (ὃ λέγεται Διδάσκαλε). The form Rabboni, “my Teacher,” is found in N.T. here only and at Mk. 10:51, but it is hardly distinguishable in meaning from Rabbi, the pronominal affix having no special force.¹ Jn. interprets it here for his Greek readers, as he interprets “Rabbi” (see on 1:38). It will be remembered that Martha and Mary were accustomed to speak of Jesus as the Rabbi ὁ διδάσκαλος (see 11:28), when talking to each other

An interpretative gloss is added here by א^caΘ and fam. 13, viz. καὶ προσέδραμεν ἅψασθαι αὐτοῦ, which appears also in Syr. sin. in the form “and she ran forward unto Him that she might draw near to (or to touch) Him.” So also the Jerusalem Syriac. The gloss “et occurrit ut tangeret eum” is found in several Latin texts with Irish affinities; e.g. in the Book of Armagh, the Egerton MS. (mm), Cant., Stowe, and Rawl. G. 167. The idea behind the gloss is probably that Mary approached to clasp the Lord’s feet in respect and homage; cf. Mt. 28:9 where it is said of the women that “they took hold of His feet, and worshipped Him.”

17. This verse must be compared with Mt. 28:9, 10 where, again, the Risen Lord is seen by Mary Magdalene and speaks to her and her companion. In that passage the women, returning from the tomb to tell the disciples of the angel’s message, are at once in fear and joy. Jesus greets them by saying Χαίρετε. They clasp His feet in worship. He then tells them not to fear, Μή φοβεῖσθε, and adds ὑπάγετε ἀπαγγείλατε τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου ἵνα ἀπέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, κἀκεῖ με ὄψονται. This almost reproduces the words of the angel in v. 7, with the significant change of μαθηταῖς into ἀδελφοῖς. Only here in the Gospels (Jn. 20:17, Mt. 28:10) is Jesus represented as speaking of His disciples as “my brethren”. Cf. Heb. 2:11, 12 (quoting Ps. 22:22).

It is likely that the account in Mt. 28:9, 10 of the appearance of Jesus to the Maries was based on the lost conclusion of Mk.; for Mt. 28:1–8 is plainly an amplified version of the simpler Mk. 16:1–8. The phrase “tell to my brethren” was probably in Mk.’s story, and we have already seen that Jn. knew Mk.,¹ whose narrative he corrects, when he thinks it necessary. In this instance, the message sent to the disciples is not, as in Mk. and Mt., that they should go to Galilee, where they would see their Risen Master. Jn. represents the message quite differently. It is: “Say to them, I go up to my Father.”

This expression ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου is only another form of the words spoken so often by Jesus, ὑπάγω πρός τὸν πάτερα (16:10; cf. 7:33, 16:5), or πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (14:12, 28, 16:28). He had warned the disciples repeatedly that He would return to the Father who had sent Him. The time for this had not been reached on the day of the Resurrection, οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, but it was near. ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. It is said for the last time.

The term “Ascension” for us indicates the climax of the earthly life of Christ, but ἀναβαίειν, ἀνάβασις, are common Greek words, which at first were not always used of the Ascension of Christ, still less appropriated to it. They are not used of the Ascension in the Synoptists (Lk. 24:51 has ἀνεφέρετο, while [Mk.] 16:19 has ἀνελήφθη). ἀναβαίνειν is thus used in Eph. 4:8, which is a quotation from Ps. 68:18, but Paul does not use the verb again of the ascending Christ. In Acts 2:34 we have οὐ γὰρ Δαβὶδ ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, which contains an allusion to the fact that Christ did thus “go up.” But, apart from these, the only other places in N.T. where ἀναβαίνειν is thus used, are Jn. 6:62 (see note, in loc.) and the present passage. Barnabas (§ 15) employs the verb thus, and so does Justin (Tryph. 38); but Justin also uses ἀνέλευσις (Apol. i. 26) and ἄνοδος (Tryph. 82) of the Ascension of Christ. It was not until the days of Creed-making that the Church settled down to ἀναβαίνειν, ἀνάβασις, as the technical terms for Christ’s ascending. We miss the point of the employment of ἀναβαίνειν in the present verse if we do not treat it as an ordinary verb for “going up,” which would be recognised by the disciples as practically equivalent to ὑπάγειν or πορεύεσθαι often used by Jesus when predicting His departure.¹

Thus the message which Mary was bidden to give to the disciples would recall to them words such as those of 14:2, 3. Jesus was going to the Father’s house, where He would prepare a place for them. It is remarkable that the form of the message is like that of Mt. 28:10 (probably based on the lost conclusion of Mk.), although there the place where He is to see His disciples again is not heaven but Galilee (cf. Mk. 14:28). Lk. 24:6, as has been already said, alters the Marcan and Matthæan tradition here, by substituting for the promise of a meeting in Galilee, the words μνήσθητε ὡς ἐλάλησεν ὑμῖν ἔτι ὢν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαία, λέγων, that the Son of Man must die and rise again, etc. Abbott’s inference from this comparison is that “an expression misunderstood by Mk. and Mt. as meaning Galilee, and omitted by Lk. because he could not understand it at all, was understood by Jn. to mean My Father’s place, i.e. Paradise.”² This is precarious reasoning, but at any rate it is certain that Jn. (a) was aware of the Matthæan (? Marcan) tradition and (b) that he corrected it, bringing the message into correspondence with a saying of Jesus which he has previously recorded more than once.

Attention must now be directed to the words Μή μου ἅπτου, which (according to all extant texts) Jesus addressed to Mary, His reason being “for I have not yet ascended to My Father.” It is not said explicitly in this chapter that Jesus was ever touched by His disciples after He was risen, although it is suggested both in v. 22 and in v. 27. In the latter passage, Thomas is actually invited to touch the Lord’s wounded side (although it is not said that he did so), just as in Lk. 24:39, Jesus says ψηλαφήσατέ με to the assembled disciples. The only explicit statement in the Gospels of the Risen Christ being touched is Mt. 28:9. Nevertheless Lk. 24:39 and Jn. 20:27 sufficiently indicate that, in the judgment of the evangelists, it was possible to touch Him, and that He invited such experiment to be made. (See further on v. 20.)

Hence “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended,” is difficult of interpretation, inasmuch as within a week at any rate, and before His final manifestation at His departure, Jesus had challenged the test of touch. We can hardly suppose that Jn. means us to believe that in the interval between v. 17 and v. 27 the conditions of the Risen Life of Jesus had so changed that what was unsuitable on the first occasion became suitable on the second. And there is the further difficulty, that as the words μή μου ἅπτου οὔπω γὰρ κτλ. stand, it is implied that to “touch” Jesus would be easier after His Ascension than before. The gloss et occurrit ut tangeret eum, which is inserted before noli me tangere in some texts (see on v. 16), shows that the primitive interpretation of the words implied a physical touching, and not merely a spiritual drawing near. The parallel Mt. 28:10 confirms this. Accordingly, to give to the repulse, “Touch me not,” a spiritual meaning, as if it meant that freedom of access between the disciple and the Master would not be complete until the Resurrection had been consummated in the Ascension and the Holy Spirit had been sent, seems over-subtle. Yet this is what the words must mean if μή μου ἅπτου is part of the genuine text of Jn.

Meyer cited a conjectural emendation of these words (by Gersdorf and Schulthess) which he dismissed without discussion, but for which nevertheless there is a good deal to be said. We have drawn attention already to the parallel passage, Mt. 28:10, but there is yet another point to be noted. By all the Synoptists the fear of the women at the tomb is emphasised. ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (Mk. 16:8), although the νεάνισκος had said μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε (Mk. 16:6). They were ἔμφοβοι (Lk 24:5). And in Mt. 28:5, 10 not only the angel, but Jesus Himself prefaced His message to the disciples by saying to the women (after they had clasped His feet) μὴ φοβεῖσθε. Now in our texts of Jn. there is no hint that Mary Magdalene (who is the only woman mentioned here by this evangelist) was frightened at all. She is without fear, apparently, when she recognises the Lord. The parallel passage, Mt. 28:9, would suggest (as the gloss here does) that she cast herself at His feet in awestruck homage. We should expect here (as in Mk., Mt.) that Jesus would encourage her by forbidding her to be afraid. Instead of this, we find the enigmatic words μή μου ἅπτου. But if these words are a corruption of μὴ πτόου, as might very well be the case, “be not affrighted,” all is clear. This is the verb used of the fright of the disciples in Lk. 24:37 (πτοηθέντες), caused as Lk. says by their idea that they saw a spirit. And μὴ πτόου would come exactly where μὴ φοβεῖσθε comes in Mt. 28:10, viz. after the Lord’s feet have been clasped in homage and fear. The sequence, then, is easy. “Be not affrighted, for I have not get gone up to my Father”: I am still with you, as you knew me on earth; I have not yet resumed the awful majesty of heaven. Do not fear: carry my message to the disciples, as in the old days.

The best supported reading is μή μου ἅπτου, but B has μὴ ἅπτου μου, and two cursives (47^ev and d^scr) omit μου altogether. If the text were originally μὴ πρόου, an easy corruption would be μὴ ἅπτου, and then μου would naturally be added either before or after ἅπτου to make the sense clear.

οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα, “for I have not yet gone up …” i.e. taken my final departure. For Jn., a week at the least (v. 27, and see on 21:1) elapsed between the Resurrection and that last of the manifestations of the Risen Christ which we call the Ascension. He says nothing of the interval of forty days for which our only authority is Acts 1:3. But Jn., nevertheless, uses language (6:62) which implies not only that the final departure of Christ was a startling and wonderful incident, but that it was visible, in this agreeing with Lk. 24:50–52, Acts 1:9; cf. Appx. to Mk. (16:19).

Ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου. That was what He had said often before (in effect); but now He adds καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν. His Father was their Father too, although there was a difference in the relation (see on 2:16); and of this He would remind them now. Observe He does not say “Our Father.”

καὶ θεόν μου. So He said “My God” on the Cross (Mk. 15:34); cf. Rev. 3:2. He is still Man, and so Paul repeatedly has the expression “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6, etc.). And His God is the God also of His disciples—the only God.

18. ἔρχεται Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδ. ἀγγέλλουσα κτλ. א A B have ἀγγέλλουσα, as against the rec. ἀπαγγελλουσα (NΘ). W has ἀναγγέλλουσα.

Lk. 24:11 and [Mk.] 16:11 say that the disciples did not believe the report of the women. Mt. does not tell whether the message to the disciples was delivered or no.

ὅτι (recitantis) Ἑώρακα τὸν κύριον. This was the first thing Mary said before she gave her message (cf. v. 25). א B N a g support ἑώρακα, as against the rec. ἐώρακε (with A D LΔ Θ).

The appearance to Mary is not mentioned by Paul in his summary of the visions of the Risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:5–7). It is the appearances to the leaders of the future Church (Peter and James), and to the assembled disciples, that were regarded as the basis for the Church’s faith in the Resurrection.

First Appearance of the Risen Christ to the Disciples: Their Commission and Their Authority (vv. 19–23)

19. οὔσης οὖν ὀψίας. This appearance is described also in Lk. 24:36f. Lk. places it after the return of the two from Emmaus, who reported to the apostles their meeting with the Risen Jesus; this would necessarily be late in the evening (cf. Lk. 24:29), probably about 8 p.m. (see for ὀψία on 6:16). The Appendix to Mark (16:14) states that He appeared to the Eleven “while they sat at meat.” It is not improbable that they were assembled in the room where the Last Supper was eaten (cf. also Acts 1:13), and where Jesus had spoken the discourses of farewell (Jn. 14–16).

It would appear from Lk. 24:36 that the two Emmaus disciples were present, as well as the apostles, and probably some others also (Lk. 24:33). This is not necessarily inconsistent with Jn., although He speaks only of “the disciples,” for μαθηταί often includes others besides the inner circle of apostles (see on 2:2). But in the later chapters of Jn. οἱ μαθηταί generally stands for the Eleven, and the Lord’s manifestation of Himself to them in particular, as had been promised (16:16), is mentioned as fundamentally important in 1 Cor. 15:5. Whether others were present or not, it is His appearance to the apostles on this occasion that is treated as of special significance; and the words of His commission in v. 21 are most naturally limited to those who were commissioned by Him as “apostles” at the beginning of His ministry.¹

τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, a favourite phrase in Jn.; cf. 1:39, 5:9, 11:53, 14:20, 16:23, 26, and see on 1:29 for Jn.’s precision in noting dates. He adds here, accordingly, τῇ μιᾷ σαββάτων. The rec. text has τῶν before σαββάτων as in v. 1, but א A BI L om. τῶν here.

τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων … διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων. The rumour that the tomb was empty had spread (as is indicated in Mt. 28:11), and the Jewish leaders were doubtless suspicious of any gathering of the disciples of Jesus For the phrase τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδ., cf. 7:13. It is repeated at v. 26 that the doors of the room were shut at the time of the meeting a week later.

ὅπου ἦσαν οἱ μαθηταί. Only ten of the original Twelve were present (v. 24); Lk. 24:33 has οἱ ἕνδεκα. See on 2:2 for οἱ μαθηταί used absolutely.

ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. No attempt is made to explain how He came.

καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον (repeated v. 26). Lk. 24:36 has the more usual ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν; but εἰς τὸ μέσον after a verb of motion is quite correct (cf. Mk. 3:3, Lk. 6:8), and has classical authority (e.g. Xenophon, Cyropœd. iv 1:1, στὰς εἰς τὸ μέσον).

Justin (Tryph. 106) finds in Jesus standing in the midst of His brethren (cf. v. 17) a fulfilment of Ps. 22:22 (quoted Heb. 2:12),

διηγήσομαι τὸ ὄνομα σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου,

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. These words are found also in most texts of Lk. 24:36, but being omitted there by D a b e ff₂ l r are described by Hort as a “Western non-interpolation” in that place. If that judgment is correct, scribes have brought the words into Lk’s text from Jn., where there is no doubt of their genuineness. It is, however, possible that the words are part of the original text of Lk.; and in that case they furnish an additional illustration of the use of Lk.’s tradition by Jn. at this point (see v. 20). Throughout their accounts of the appearance of the Risen Jesus to the apostles, it is clear that Jn. and Lk. are following the same tradition, while Jn. does not hesitate to correct and amplify or reduce the current version of it (as found in Lk.) at several points.

Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν is the ordinary Eastern salutation on entering a room, and is so used (Lk. 24:36, Jn 20:19, 26). But in v. 21 εἰρήνη ὑμῖν is solemnly repeated before the apostles receive their commission, and may carry an allusion to the parting gift of peace in 14:27.

20. Here, again, we must compare Lk. 24:40 καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας, which also Hort regards as a. “Western non-interpolation,” for these words in Lk. are omitted by D a b e ff l r Syr. cur. They are identical with the words in Jn. 20:20, except that in Jn. we have τὴν πλευράν, while in Lk. we have τοὺς πόδας. Jn. being the only evangelist who mentions the piercing of the Lord’s side (19:34), it is natural that τὴν πλευράν should not appear in Lk.; but if (as Hort supposes) the scribes of Lk. took over the words in question from Jn., they must have deliberately substituted τοὺς πόδας for τὴν πλευράν.

The words τοὺς πόδας in Lk. 24:39, 40 provide the only Biblical evidence for the belief that the Lord’s feet as well as His hands were nailed to the Cross. In the narratives of the Crucifixion all that is said is “they crucified Him”; but it is not specified whether His hands and feet were tied or nailed to the Cross (both methods being common). Both Lk. and Jn. agree that His hands were marked, and Jn. speaks of “the print of the nails” in them (v. 25); but Jn. says nothing of the feet having been nailed. Pseudo-Peter, in like manner, speaks of drawing out the nails from the hands of Jesus, after He had died (§ 6), but does not mention the feet. So also Cyril of Jerusalem says nothing of the nailing of the feet, while he finds a symbolic meaning in the nailing of the hands (Cat. xiii. 38). The earliest reference (excepting Lk. 24:39, 40) to the piercing of the feet is in Justin’s Trypho (§ 97), who claims Ps. 22:16–18 as a literal prophecy of the Crucifixion. Having regard to the language of Jn. 20:20, 25, as well as to the second-century tradition of Pseudo-Peter, it would seem as if the tradition of Lk. 24:39 [40] rests on the early application of “they pierced my hands and my feet” (Ps. 22:16) to the Crucifixion of Jesus rather than on the testimony of an eye-witness. Such testimony we believe to lie behind the narrative of the Fourth Gospel (cf. 19:35); and hence it is probable that the Lord’s feet were not marked by the print of nails. Jn. in 20:20 is (in our view) deliberately correcting the account given in Lk. 24:39, 40 (for we take Lk. 24:40 to be as original as Lk. 24:39), so as to bring it into correspondence with the facts.

τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῖς is the best attested reading (א A B D) as against the rec. αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ.

Jn. says only that Jesus showed them His hands and His side; Lk. goes further and says that He invited them to dispel their doubts by handling and touching Him (ψηλαφήσατέ με, Lk. 24:39); representing the disciples as disturbed and terrified by His sudden appearance. Jn. does not say that they touched Him, or that they were asked to do so; this omission being probably designed, so as to correct an over-statement in Lk.

A later tradition as to this incident, preserved in Ignatius (Smyrn. 3) must now be cited. Ignatius writes: “I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the Resurrection, and when He came to Peter and his company (πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον), He said to them, Take, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon (λάβετε ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε ὃτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον). And straightway they touched Him (αὐτοῦ ἣψαντο), and they believed, being mixed with (κραθέντες) His flesh and blood.… And after His Resurrection, He ate and drank with them as one in the flesh, although spiritually He was united with the Father.” Jerome states that this version of the story of the appearance of Jesus comes from the apocryphal Gospel to the Hebrews (see Catal. Script. Eccl. § 16), and it may be so (see Lightfoot on Ignat. Smyrn. 3). In any case, it is dependent on Lk. 24:39–43, and amplifies Lk.’s account in particular by stating explicitly that Jesus was touched (see on v. 17 above), and by adding that He drank as well as ate with the disciples.

The simplicity and restraint of Jn.’s account of this incident are not only in marked contrast with the story as Ignatius has it, but are also a feature of Jn.’s narrative as compared with Lk.’s. Jn. does not speak in the Gospel itself of the Risen Lord eating (but cf. the Appendix 21:13 and the note there), or explicitly of His being touched (see above on vv. 14, 17).

ἐχάρησαν οὖν οἱ μαθηταὶ ἰδόντες τὸν κύριον. This was the fulfilment of the promise to the apostles, πάλιν δὲ ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς και χαρήσεται ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία (16:22). Lk. 24:41 says that the disciples “disbelieved for joy,” but he states at v. 37 that they were terrified when they saw Jesus standing in their midst. Of their fear, there is no hint in Jn. This is the first occurrence in Jn. of ὁ κύριος being used of Jesus in the direct narrative (see on 4:1, where the apparent exceptions are mentioned). The evangelist is thinking of his Master, not as He moved about in the days of His earthly ministry, but as risen and about to ascend to His glory, i.e. as “the Lord.”

21. εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς. The rec. adds ὁ Ἰησοῦς with A B NΓ Δ Θ, but om. א D W.

For πάλιν, see on 1:35. For the repeated εἰρήνη ὑμῖν, see on v. 19.

καθὼς … κἀγώ. For this constr., see on 6:57 (cf. 10:15). Here there can be no doubt that the sentence means “As the Father hath sent me, so I send you.” When He commissioned His disciples for their ministry before His final departure, He reproduced the words of the great Prayer which had been said in their hearing: καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὸν κόσμον, κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον (17:18). These words primarily had reference to the original choice of the twelve “apostles” (see note on 17:18), viz. ἐποίησεν δώδεκα … ἳνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν κτλ. (Mk. 3:14), but they had a forward reference also to their final commission.

The constr. καθὼς … κἀγώ at 15:9 and 17:18 (which are parallel in form to the present passage) has to do in both cases with a comparison of the Father’s relation to Christ and Christ’s relation to the apostles, not to the general body of disciples. It is natural to interpret the καθὼς … κἀγώ here as involving the same comparison, and therefore to take the commission here as entrusted to the apostles. Others may have been present (see on v. 19), but the final commission was not specifically given to any but the inner circle, who had been long since selected as those who were to be “sent forth.”

καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ πατήρ. This is the constant theme of the Johannine Christ when speaking of His authority. He is, pre-eminently, ὁ ἀπόστολος (Heb. 3:1); for God the Father has sent Him (cf. 3:17).

κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς. So א^cbA B D²N Γ Δ Θ against א^caD L 33 ἀποστέλλω, but no distinction can be drawn between πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω (see on 3:17 above).

The sending of the apostles by Christ was (in a deep sense, although not with exact correspondence; see on 6:57) like the sending of Christ by the Father. He had told them at the Last Supper that whoever received those whom He sent received Him, while those who received Him received the Father that sent Him (13:20). Language of this kind is addressed in the Fourth Gospel to the apostles alone; and it is difficult, in the face of the parallel passages that have been cited, to suppose that in this verse, and here only, the evangelist means us to understand that the great commission was given to all the disciples who were present, alike and in the same degree. It is quite just to describe this verse as “the Charter of the Christian Church” (Westcott), but the Charter was addressed in the first instance to the leaders of the Church, and not to all its members, present and future, without discrimination.

The question as to who were the first recipients of the gift and the authority conferred by Jesus in vv. 22, 23, has been much debated in connexion with modern controversies as to Confession and Absolution;¹ but the exegete must ask one question only, viz., “What did the evangelist intend his readers to believe?” We must not assume, because Lk. 24:33 tells that others were with the Eleven on the evening of the Resurrection just before the Lord manifested Himself, that therefore Jn. in his report of the same incident implies either (a) that others beside the apostles were present when Jesus began to speak, or (b) that His commission was not addressed exclusively to the apostles even if others were there. On the contrary, the language used by Jn. seems, as has been said, distinctly to imply that the commission was given to apostles alone.

This was the interpretation put upon Jn. 20:20–23 by the earliest Christian writers who allude to these verses. Justin (Tryph. 106) ignores the presence of any but apostles. Origen (de princip. I. iii. 2 and Comm. in Jn. 388) and Cyprian (de unit. 4, Epist. lxxiii. 6) say explicitly that Accipe spiritum sanctum, etc., was addressed to the apostles. The Liturgy of St. Mark (which may be as early as the second century) is equally explicit.¹ I do not know, indeed, of any early writer who takes a different view. The words of Cyprian (Epist. lxxv. 16) in solos apostolos insufflauit Christus, etc., express the accepted view as to the persons to whom the Lord said “Take the Holy Spirit.” It would be going much further to claim that Cyprian’s subsequent inference was justified, for he proceeds to say: “potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum apostolis data est, et ecclesiis quas illi a Christo missi constiterunt, et episcopis qui eis ordinatione uicaria successerunt.” The words which are italicised need not necessarily be accepted by those who recognise that Jn.’s narrative is a narrative of a commission given in the first instance to the apostles alone.

22. καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐνεφύσησεν κτλ. “He breathed upon them.” ἐμφυσᾶν does not occur again in N.T., but it is the verb used Gen. 2:7 (cf. Wisd. 15:11) of God “breathing” into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life. So in Ezek. 37:9 “breathe on these slain that they may live” is addressed to the life-giving Spirit. Milligan quotes a parallel from a second or third-century papyrus, ὁ ἑνφυσήσας πνεῦμα ἀνθρώποις εἰς ζωήν.

The language of this verse goes back to Gen. 2:7, it being implied that as the life of Adam was due to the “breath” of God, so the gift of spiritual life to the apostles was imparted by the “breath” of Christ. (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:45.) The Johannine doctrine is that this quickening power of His spirit could not be released until the “glorification,” i.e. the death, of Jesus (see on 7:37–39); and in strict accordance with this, Jn. represents the Spirit as given and received on the day of His Resurrection. It is not that we have here a foretaste, as it were, of a fuller outpouring of the Spirit which was manifested at Pentecost (arrha Pentecostes, as Bengel calls it); but that, for Jn., the action and the words of Jesus here are a complete fulfilment of the promise of the Paraclete. As has been said on 16:23 (where see note), there is nothing in the Fourth Gospel inconsistent with the story of the Pentecostal effusion (Acts 2:1f.); but for Jn. the critical day, when the Spirit was not only promised, but given, is not Pentecost (as with Lk.) but the day of the Resurrection. We cannot distinguish here, any more than at 7:39, between πνεῦμα and τὸ πνεῦμα.

Λάβετε πνεῦμα ἃγιον. The gift is freely offered, but that it may be “received” demands a responsive effort on the part of him to whom it is offered. Cf. τὸ πνεῦμα … ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν (14:17). An unspiritual man could not assimilate the gift. Λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου (Mk. 14:22) does not mean that the sacramental gift can operate automatically, but that it is offered freely. So in the Acts (8:15, 17, 19, 10:47) λαμβάνειν πνεῦμα ἃγιον occurs several times, but always the “taking” implies a certain disposition on the part of him who takes.

23. ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς. ἄν is used, as often, for ἐάν. ἀφέωνται is the reading of א^cA D L, as against the rec. ἀφίενται. B* has ἀφείονται. ἀφιέναι in the sense of “forgive” (sin) does not appear elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, but cf. 1 Jn. 2:12 ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. In the Synoptists, Jesus declares to individuals “thy sins are forgiven” (Mk. 2:5 and parallels, Lk. 7:48); but here He seemingly commits, to those to whom He had imparted His Spirit, authority to use the like words.

“Whose soever sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them.” The meaning of this passage in its context must be sought quite apart from the inferences that have been drawn from it in later ages. As it stands, it is the parting commission of Jesus to the apostles, to whom He had previously promised the Holy Spirit, and to whom He had now imparted that Divine gift. Jn. says nothing about the authority of those who received it to impart the Spirit in their turn to others. That may be a legitimate inference, but it is an inference for the validity of which we must seek evidence elsewhere.

That the apostles interpreted their evangelical mission as giving them authority to hand it on is, indeed, not doubtful. The terms of their commission as described in Mt. 28:19, 20 (cf. [Mk.] 16:15) imply that it was to last “to the end of the world,” the apostolate being established in permanence. Clement of Rome, whose Epistle is contemporary with the Fourth Gospel, expresses the accepted view: “Jesus Christ was sent forth from God … the apostles are from Christ … preaching everywhere, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons to them that should believe” (Clem. Rom. 42). And it would appear in like manner that, as early as the time of Origen¹ at any rate, the bishops were regarded as having succeeded to the powers of binding and loosing committed to the apostles in Mt. 18:18.

But, whether these developments were legitimate or not, we are here concerned only with the meaning of the commission to the apostles as recorded in vv. 22, 23; and confining ourselves strictly to this, we start from the presupposition—common to Jews and Christians—that no one can “forgive” sin but God (Mk. 2:7). But God is always ready to forgive (1 Jn. 1:9); and the assurance of God’s forgiveness can always be given confidently to repentant sinners. This assurance may be given by any one; it needs no authority to give it, for it is a fundamental principle of the Gospel. But, then, no one can give this assurance in an individual case, without being certain that this individual sinner is, indeed, repentant in his heart. And to be sure of this, he who says “thy sins are forgiven” must be able to read men’s hearts. Jesus claimed that He could do this: “the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins” (Mk. 2:10). Of this the explanation is found in Jn. 3:34, “He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God, for He giveth not the Spirit by measure.” To Jesus, and to Him alone, was the Spirit given in its fullness, and so He alone could infallibly discern the secrets of the human heart (Jn. 2:25). He could say, therefore, “thy sins are forgiven thee” (Mk. 2:5) with a complete authority.

Now a main theme of the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus promised that He would send (14:16, 16:7–13), and did in fact impart (20:22), the Spirit to the apostles. It was not confined to them, but was for every believing disciple (7:38) But it was more largely promised, and more explicitly bestowed, on them than on any one else. And it was in the power of this Spirit of God that they were authorised not only to proclaim universally the message of God’s forgiveness (Acts 10:43), but to say in individual cases “thy sins are forgiven.” Among the gifts of the Spirit was the gift of insight (cf. διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, 1 Cor. 12:10 and see Jn. 16:8). Hence the words λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον govern the words giving the apostles authority to forgive or not to forgive. In so far as the Spirit was theirs, so far was their judgment of men’s hearts a true judgment.

Lk. does not tell of so explicit an authority being conferred upon the apostles; but the parting commission for him too is “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached to all the nations”; and the authority is described as “the promise of the Father” which is presently to be granted (Lk. 24:47, 49). The parting commission to the Eleven in Mt. 28:18f. has one point of similarity with Jn. 20:23, viz. that it rests the command to make disciples upon the universal authority of Christ. “All authority hath been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore,” etc. Their power as evangelists would rest upon their being His disciples; just as in Jn. 20:23 their power of absolving is made dependent upon their assimilation of His Spirit. It is to be observed that Jn. makes no mention of any commission to baptize.

The passages in Mt., however, which are specially recalled by Jn. 20:23 are Mt. 16:19, 18:18, in both of which we find “What things soever you shall bind (δήσητε) on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever you shall loose (λύσητε) on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In Mt. 16:19 these words are addressed to Peter, as having the keys of the kingdom of heaven; in Mt. 18:18 they are (seemingly) addressed to the Twelve. To “bind” and to “loose” are Rabbinical expressions signifying to “prohibit” and to “permit” (many illustrations are given in Lightfoot’s Hor. Hebr. on Mt. 16:19)¹; and the use of these verbs would suggest to Jews a form of ecclesiastical discipline (cf. 1 Cor. 5:4, and esp. Acts 15:29, 16:4). In Mt. 18:18 the context shows that something of this sort is indicated; the Divine ratification being promised of the Church’s action. The words refer to the “loosing” of “sin,” and may imply forgiveness as well as discipline. To forgive sins is to loose; cf. τῷ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν ἠμῶν (Rev. 1:5; see also Job 42:9, LXX).

Mt. 16:19 and Mt. 18:18 are passages which have marks of lateness; they are, e.g., the only two passages in the Gospels where the word “Church” is found; and the tradition preserved in them of the Lord’s commission to the Apostles is more likely to be dependent on that of Jn. 20:23 than vice versa. Indeed Jn.’s brief narrative here is clearly an original statement, and does not betray any acquaintance with Mt. 16:19, 18:18.

ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται. The Sinai Syriac renders “whom ye shall shut your door against, it shall be shut”; i.e. it takes κρατῆτε as governing τινῶν, rather than τὰς ἁμαρτίας. κρατεῖν does not occur elsewhere in Jn., but it generally takes the accusative, and the parallelism of the sentence would suggest that ἀφῆτε and κρατῆτε both govern τὰς ἁμαρτίας here. The two verbs are contrasted similarly in Mk. 7:8, ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

The broad, unqualified form of this great assurance to the apostles is characteristic of many of the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, e.g. “Whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, He will give it you” (15:16). He did not stay to explain the limitations or conditions of such a promise. It is a mark of every great teacher, confident in himself, that he does not weaken the force of his teaching by pointing out, at every stage, possible exceptions to the maxims which he has enunciated; and it was a mark of the greatest Teacher of all.

24. This section is peculiar to Jn., who is specially interested in Thomas (11:16, 14:5). See on v. 28.

Θωμᾶς … ὁ λεγόμενος Δἰδυμος. See on 11:16 for this expression. As has been noted there, Thomas was the pessimist of the apostolic band. We can imagine his saying “I told you so,” when the Cross seemed to be the end of all their hopes. His absence from the meeting of the disciples on the Resurrection day may have been due to a feeling that such gatherings were futile, henceforth. But he came to the second meeting a week later, although unconvinced by what the others had told him, just as Lk. tells that the others were unconvinced by the report of the women (Lk. 24:11).

εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα. See on 6:71 for this phrase. The apostolic company are still described as “the Twelve” (cf. 6:67), although one had failed in his allegiance and was now separated from them. “The Twelve” remained a convenient title for the inner circle of disciples; cf. 1 Cor. 15:5, Pseudo-Peter, § 12, and Acta Thaddæi, 6.

25. Ἐωράκαμεν τὸν κύριον. So Mary had said (v. 18). But Thomas was not satisfied. He claimed that he must test the matter by his sense of touch (a test which according to Jn. had not been offered to the other disciples, see v. 20), and not by sight only.

τὸν τύπον. AΘ have τὸν τόπον at the second occurrence of this word, a very natural mistake. The Vulgate has fixuram clauorum, followed by in locum clauorum: fixuram is the rendering of τύπον by g, but b c d e give figuram.

Thomas is represented as knowing of the lance-thrust in Jesus’ side, which suggests that he was a witness of the Crucifixion. As has been pointed out on v. 20, no mention is made of any nailing of the feet.

26 μεθʼ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ. The disciples seem to have remained in Jerusalem for the whole of Passover week, either because they had made arrangements to do so before the feast began, or (more probably) because they had some reason to believe that Jesus would manifest Himself to them again. This second manifestation was seemingly in the same room (ἔσω) where He had shown Himself to them on the evening of the Resurrection day; there is no evidence that any manifestation of the Risen Lord was granted during the week. Jn. follows his usual habit (see on 1:29) of giving dates for the incidents of his narrative.

This time Thomas was with his ten comrades (οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ instead of οἱ μαθηταί as at v. 19; see on 2:2), the doors again being shut, perhaps because they were still afraid of the Sanhedrim. Jn. writes here ἔρχεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς, a solemn phrase which (unlike ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς of v. 19) may be intended to express that He was expected to come. The narrative proceeds exactly as in v. 19 (where see note) καὶ ἔσρη εἰς τὸ μέσον, καὶ εἶπεν Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν, Jesus giving them the customary salutation of Peace, as before.

27. εἶτα λέγει τῷ Θωμᾷ. Jn. tells the story, as if Jesus immediately addressed Himself to Thomas, and as if it were on his account that He had come among them again.

Jesus offers to Thomas at once the test which he had declared would be essential if he were to credit the story that the Lord had risen, and suggests it in almost the same words that Thomas had used (v. 25). He thus shows to Thomas that He knows what has been in his mind and how he had expressed it. And His words, revealing that this was He who could read men’s hearts (2:25), proved sufficient to sweep away all doubt from the mind of His incredulous disciple. There is no suggestion in the text that Thomas took advantage of the proferred test, or that he touched the body of the Risen Jesus at all (see on v. 20 above).

ἴδε τὰς χεῖράς μου, “look at my hands,” which were probably uncovered. This is perhaps in contrast with … βάλε εἰς τὴν πλευράν μου, “put your hand into my side,” as if the invitation were to put his hand under the garments of Jesus, to assure himself. But, perhaps, all that is implied is that the test of touch was offered to Thomas, while the other disciples had been content with seeing the Lord’s hands and side (v. 20).¹

καὶ μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός, “and become not faithless, but believing.” As Meyer points out, Thomas was not faithless, but he was on the way to such a state of mind. If the Lord’s words to him are behind [Mk.] 16:14, where it is said that “He upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen,” the author of the Marcan Appendix must have regarded the quiet exhortation of Jesus as conveying a more severe rebuke than is suggested by Jn. See on v. 29.

28. ἁπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς. The rec. prefixes καί, but om. א B C*D W L Θ; it also has ὁ before Θωμᾶς, with א L 33, but om. A B C D W Γ Δ Θ.

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ κτλ. Thomas did not apply the test which he had said was essential. Once he had seen and heard his Master, it seemed to him unnecessary. He breaks out into joyful words of recognition and adoration, ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. Like Mary, who exclaimed Rabboni, when she recognised Jesus (v. 16), Thomas exclaims “my Lord” (see on 4:1 for κύριος). But he goes beyond this, for he now, in a flash, perceives that Jesus was his Lord in a deeper sense than he had understood before; he may henceforth be called ὁ θεός μου. This, indeed (as the Jewish ecclesiastics had vaguely suspected, 5:18), was involved in the claims that Jesus had made for Himself, but He had not expressed them so explicitly.

The Confession of Thomas goes far beyond the Confession of Nathanael (1:49), which had drawn forth the praise of Jesus at the beginning of His ministry. It expresses the deepest of Christian truths, which Jn. had placed in the forefront of his Gospel as governing and explaining all that he is about to narrate, Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (1:1). But Jn. does not represent any disciple as having recognised its truth before the eager and enthusiastic Thomas perceived it at this moment of spiritual exaltation.

For the use of ὁ with a nominative case for a vocative, cf. Mk. 14:36, Pss. 63:1, 65:1, 71:17, and especially Ps. 35:23, ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου. Milligan (s.v. κύριος) cites, for the combination of θεός and κύριος, a Fayûm inscription of b.c. 24 on a building at Socnopæi, τῷ θεῷ και κυρίῳ Σοκνοπαίῳ. Cf. Abbott, Diat. 2682.

29. λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰης. B omits ὁ, as usual (see on 1:29).

ὅτι ἑώρακάς με. The rec. adds Θωμᾶ, but om. א A B C D W Θ.

πεπίστευκας; We should probably treat this as interrogative, “Hast thou believed, because thou hast seen Me?” (cf. 16:31). It was sight, not touch, that convinced Thomas. Jesus does not say, “Hast thou believed, because thou hast touched Me?” Thomas was convinced, just as the other disciples were, by seeing the Lord (v. 20). The faith which is generated thus is precious (cf. on 2:11 for the faith which rests on “signs”); but it was possible for Jesus’ contemporaries alone to see Him as the disciples saw Him. By the time the Fourth Gospel was written, the first generation of Christian believers had passed away, and the path to faith for all future disciples could not be the path of sight (cf. 2 Cor. 5:7, 1 Pet. 1:8). So Jn. adds here as the last word of Jesus in the Gospel as originally planned, “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”¹

This Beatitude has been sometimes supposed to contain an implied rebuke to Thomas. But it can be no more a rebuke to him than to the other disciples ([Mk.] 16:14), who, equally, saw before they believed. If Thomas is rebuked at all, it is in the words μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος (v. 27, where see note). It is never taught in the Gospel that a facile credulity is a Christian virtue; and Thomas was not wrong in wishing for some better proof of his Master’s Resurrection than hearsay could give. Indeed, Jesus had warned His disciples not to give credence to every tale that they heard about Him: “If any man shall say, Lo, here is the Christ … believe it not” (Mk. 13:21).² But cf. 4:50 for an illustration of the faith that does not require to “see.”

After ἰδόντες, א with 346, 556, supported by the Syriac vss. and some Latin texts with Irish affinities, add με, an explanatory gloss.

30. These verses form the conclusion (clausula, as Tertullian calls v. 31, adv. Prax. 25) of the Gospel as originally planned, c. 21 being a supplement added before the book was issued (see p. 687).

πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλα σημειᾶ … For μὲν οὖν, cf. 19:24. Jn. explains that it was not his purpose to write a complete narrative of Jesus’ ministry. Other “signs” were done by Him (cf. 2:23, 4:45, 12:37) which he does not stay to record, although they were done in the presence of the disciples, who were the witnesses of His wonderful works, chosen by Jesus Himself (15:27; cf. Acts 1:21, 10:41). Such were, e.g., the healings of lepers and demoniacs, of which none is described in the Fourth Gospel. They were not written “in this book,” although some of them were written in other books, such as the Synoptic Gospels, of which Jn. knew Mk. and probably Lk. also.

After μαθητῶν the rec. with א C D L W Θ adds αὐτοῦ, but om. A BΔ. The witnesses of the “signs” were not only the Twelve, but disciples generally. See on 2:2 for the omission of αὐτοῦ.

ἐνώπιον. This prep. occurs only once again in Jn. (1 Jn. 3:22). It is frequent in Lk., but is not found in Mk. Mt. (see Abbott, Diat. 2335).

31. ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται, δέ corresponding to μέν of v. 30. But the signs which have been chosen by Jn. for record were recorded with the aim of inspiring in his readers the conviction that Jesus is divine, so that with this belief they may have life in His name. The Gospel, like the First Epistle, was written with a definite purpose. Cf. ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Jn. 5:13).

ἵνα πιστεύητε. So א*BΘ (as at 19:35), as against the rec. πιστεύσητε (א A C D N W).

ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. This reproduces the terms of Martha’s confession of faith (11:27), before Lazarus had been restored to her. But whereas, on her lips, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ was probably used only as a title of Messiah, as Jn. uses it here it appears to have a deeper significance (see on 1:34). The faith of future believers is to be not only a faith in Jesus as the Christ (cf. 1:41 and Mk. 8:29), but a faith in Him as the Son of God in the higher sense which has been suggested many times in the Gospel (1:18, 3:18, 5:25, 19:7), and which is made explicit in the Confession of Thomas at its close (v. 28).

καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες κτλ. This is the central message of the Fourth Gospel, that belief in Jesus Christ is the path to life. See 3:15, 16, 36, 1 Jn. 5:13. “In Him was life” is proclaimed in the Prologue (1:4), and the purpose of His coming was that men might have life; cf. 5:40, 6:53, 10:10.

The order of words suggests as the natural rendering “that, believing, ye may have life in His Name.” The sequence “life in His Name” (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ) does not occur elsewhere; but the prayer of Christ was that His faithful disciples might be “kept in His Name” by the Father (17:11, 12), and this perhaps provides a sufficient parallel. Cf. Acts 10:43 “to receive forgiveness of sins through His Name,” and 1 Cor. 6:11.

On the other hand, in the closely similar passage quoted above (1 Jn. 5:13) it is those “who believe in the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) of the Son of God” that have eternal life. And at 1:12 (where see note) the authority to become children of God is for those who “believe in His Name.” It would thus be more explicitly in accordance with Johannine teaching if we disregarded the natural order of the words here, and rendered “that believing in His Name, ye may have life” (see on 3:15). It would seem from 16:23 (where see note) that to take ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ with πιστεύοντες, despite the intervention of ζωὴν ἔχητε, would be consistent with Johannine style.

After ζωήν א C*D L and fam. 13 add αἰώνιον, probably through reminiscence of 1 Jn. 5:13, but om. A B N WΔ Θ. For ζωή and ζωὴ αἰώνιος, see on 3:15.

The Fourth Gospel was plainly intended to end with 20:31. Anything following this is of the nature of an anticlimax. No copy, however, of the Gospel, so far as we know, was ever issued without the addition of c. 21, which is quoted by Tertullian (Scorp. 15) and is treated by Origen in his Commentary as on a par with cc. 1–20. It is probable that the Appendix was added as an afterthought, before the Gospel was published, and various opinions have been held as to its authorship, purpose, and source.

We have first to ask if c. 21 is by the same hand as cc. 1–20. The only evidence by which such a question can be determined is the evidence of vocabulary and style; and it is hardly possible within the brief compass of twenty-five verses to collect sufficient data. δίκτυον (v. 6) does not occur in cc. 1–20, nor does πιάζειν (v. 3) in the sense of catching fish; but then there is no fishing anecdote in the body of the Gospel. Similarly no stress can be laid on unusual words such as προσφάγιον (v. 5), or ἐπενδύτης (v. 7). τολμᾶν and ἐξετάζειν (v. 12) do not appear elsewhere in Jn., and this must be noted, for they might very naturally have been used. So too in v. 4 we find πρωΐα, while πρωΐ is the form adopted in 18:28, 20:1. In 1:42 we have Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάνου, while at 21:15 we have the shorter Σίμων Ἰωάνου. But against these differences may be set remarkable agreements in style between cc. 1–20 and c. 21. The use of ἀμὴν ἀμήν at v. 18; the evangelistic comment at v. 23; the verbal correspondence between v. 19 and 12:33, are among the more obvious. Such similarities might possibly be due to conscious imitation of the mannerisms of Jn. by the author of the Appendix, but there are others, more subtle, which can hardly be thus explained. ἀπό in v. 8 is used exactly as at 11:18; ὁμοίως in v. 13 just as at 6:11; σύν (v. 3) is rare in Jn., but it is found 12:2, 18:1; μέντοι (v. 4) is thoroughly Johannine (cf. 12:42); and so is ὡς οὖν (v. 9; see on 4:40).¹

The view taken in this commentary is that the author of c. 21 is the person whom we designate as Jn. But, whereas throughout cc. 1–20 Jn. is accustomed to reproduce the reminiscences of John the son of Zebedee, often in the form in which the aged disciple dictated them, this cannot be affirmed with confidence of the earlier part of c. 21, although it is true of vv. 15–22.

The correspondence between 21:1–13 and Lk. 5:10–11 are so close that they demand investigation; and it is necessary also to take account of the Synoptic parallels to the Lucan passage. The story of the Call of Peter and Andrew, and also of James and John (Mk. 1:16f., Mt. 4:18f., Lk. 5:1f.) is not given by Jn., who reports instead an earlier incident, when these four disciples were attracted to Jesus for the first time (1:35f.). The Lucan narrative differs from that of Mk., Mt. in significant particulars:

(a) Lk. does not tell explicitly of any call of the fishermen, as Mk., Mt. do; while he ends his story by saying that the four left all and followed Jesus (Lk. 5:11), sc. that James and John followed as well as Peter and Andrew. Cf. Jn. 21:19, 20 where John (who has not been invited to do so) follows as well as Peter, to whom alone the call “Follow me” is addressed.

(b) In Mk., Mt. the promise, “I will make you fishers of men,” is explicitly given to Peter and Andrew, while the story suggests that it was intended for James and John as well. But in Lk. it is confined to Peter alone: “Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men.” This is in remarkable correspondence with the giving of the commission, Pasce oues meas, to Peter alone, in Jn. 21:17.

(c) Lk. interpolates the incident, which Mk., Mt. do not report, of Peter’s allegiance having been stimulated by a great catch of fish which he regarded as due to supernatural knowledge on the part of Jesus. So too in Jn. 21 it is Peter who is specially moved by the great success of the fishing due, again, to the direction of Jesus, and he alone plunges into the water to greet Jesus before the others (cf. at this point the story, peculiar to Mt. 14:28–31, of Peter walking on the waters).

(d) That the vocabulary of Jn. 21 should recall that of Lk. 5 is not in itself remarkable, for in stories relating to successful catches by fishermen the same words would naturally occur; e.g. ἐμβαίνειν “to embark” (Lk. 5:3, Jn. 21:3), ἀποβαίνειν “to disembark” (Lk. 5:2, Jn. 21:9), δίκτυον (Lk. 5:4, Jn. 21:6). But the correspondence is not only one of vocabulary. In Lk. 5:5 the fishermen say διʼ ὅλης νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οὐδὲν ἐλάβομεν: cf. Jn. 21:3 ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἐπίασαν οὐδέν. In both cases, it is by the direction of Jesus that they cast the net into deeper water (Lk. 5:4, Jn. 21:6, where see note); and in both cases they make a great catch. In Lk. 5:6 the nets were beginning to break (διερήσσετο), but they did not actually break, for the fishermen managed to secure them full of fish; so in Jn. 21:11 it is noted that the nets were not broken. That this should be mentioned shows that there was danger of them breaking, as in Lk. 5:6.

These correspondences between the stories in Lk. 5 and Jn. 21 of a great draught of fishes are so close that they cannot reasonably be accounted for on the hypothesis that they represent distinct traditions of two distinct incidents. Accordingly, two alternative explanations offer themselves.

(1) The author of Jn. 21 may have taken his story directly from Lk. 5, putting it in a different context (Wellhausen, Pfleiderer). Pfleiderer¹ regards Lk. 5:4–11 as itself only an “allegorical” narrative, and if this were the aspect under which it was viewed by Jn., his transference of the Lucan passage from one point to another would hardly call for comment. But that Lk. intended his story of the miraculous draught of fishes to be taken as an account of an incident that actually happened is not doubtful; nor is there any reason for thinking that Jn. understood it differently. Jn., however, corrects Synoptic narratives sometimes;² and it is conceivable that he has deliberately retold this Lucan story, and ascribed it, not to the early days of our Lord’s ministry, but to the period after His Resurrection.

(2) A more probable explanation, however, is that Lk. 5:1–11 and Jn. 21 are derived, in part, from the same source, viz., a Galilæan tradition (see on 20:1) about the Lord’s appearance to Peter after His Resurrection, and the restoration of Peter to his apostolic office.

(a) First, as to Lk. 5. We have seen that Mk. (followed by Mt.) tells that when Peter, Andrew, James, and John abandoned their fishing and followed Jesus, He promised two of them (if not all four) that He would make them “fishers of men.” Lk. seems to have confused this promise with the commission afterwards given to Peter to feed the sheep of Christ; and accordingly in his account of the call of the disciples he has interpolated the tradition of a miraculous draught of fishes followed by a special charge to Peter. In Lk., the promise “henceforth thou shalt catch men” is for Peter alone.

Further, the words which Lk. ascribes to Peter, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man,” (Lk. 5:8) are not adequately explained by saying that Peter was moved to confess his sinfulness because of an extraordinary take of fish. But if such words were spoken when he met his Master for the first time after he had denied Him, they are very appropriate. This sentence in Lk.’s narrative suggests of itself that the narrative belongs to the period after Jesus had risen.

(b) Next, in Jn. 21 there are indications that the story was originally current as a tradition, not of the third appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples, but of His first manifestation of Himself after His Resurrection.

It is difficult to understand how disciples who already had twice conversed with the Risen Christ (20:19, 26) should fail to recognise Him when He presented Himself by the lake-side (but see note on 21:4). That they should have gone back to their fishing after the extraordinary communication to them recorded in 20:22, 23 is strange enough (Chrysostom can only suggest that they had gone back to Galilee through fear of the Jews); but it would be stranger still if they were not sensitive, after such an experience, to every slightest indication of the presence of Jesus.

Again, the story, as narrated, suggests that this was the first occasion on which Peter met and conversed with Jesus since the night when he denied Him. vv. 15–19 relate how he was questioned by his Master, and finally reinstated, with a new and great charge, in his apostolic office. Is it likely that the person who first wrote down this story believed that Peter had seen the Risen Lord at least twice before, and had, along with his companions, been already granted the gift of the Holy Spirit and a commission to forgive sins? The inference that 21:15–19 must not be taken as posterior to 20:23 is difficult to evade.

It must not be overlooked, in this connexion, that the genuineness of πάλιν in 21:1 is doubtful. Different MSS. place πάλιν at different points in this verse (see note in loc.), and one uncial, at least, omits it altogether. It is probable that the adverb πάλιν in v. 1 and the whole of v. 14 (τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον ἐφανερώθη κτλ.) have been added by Jn. to his source to bring the tradition of an appearance in Galilee into harmony with those which he has already described at Jerusalem. v. 14 is obviously a parenthesis, for the narrative runs smoothly and consecutively from v. 13 to v. 15.

These considerations lead to the conclusion that Lk. 5:1–11 and Jn. 21 both go back to a current story that the first manifestation of the Risen Jesus to Peter (at any rate) was by the Sea of Galilee. According to Mk. 16:7 (followed by Mt. 28:7), the disciples had been told that Jesus would meet them in Galilee, and Mt. 28:16 states that He actually did so (see on 20:1, 21:1). Another instance of the survival of such a tradition is provided by the Gospel of Peter (second century), the extant fragment ending as follows: “It was the last day of unleavened bread, and many went forth, returning to their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the Twelve (see on 20:24) disciples of the Lord, wept and were grieved; and each one, grieving for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went away to the sea, and there was with us Levi the son of Alphæus, whom the Lord …” That is to say, Pseudo-Peter makes the apostles remain at Jerusalem until the Passover Feast was over, but makes no mention of any appearances of the Risen Lord to them there. Instead, he represents them as returning to their homes, the Galilæan fishermen going back to the Sea of Galilee. When the fragment ends, it seems as if an incident like that of Jn. 21:1–14 was being led up to.

Harnack holds¹ that this tradition, the source of Jn. 21:1–13 as of Lk. 5:1–11, was narrated in the Lost Conclusion of Mark. It may be so—the evidence is insufficient for certainty; but it seems more probable that Mt. 28:16f. gives us part of what was in the original Marcan narrative.

However that may be, we have reached the conclusion that Jn. 21 and Lk. 5 point back to a common source, viz. a Galilæan tradition about the Risen Lord. The question then arises, why did Jn. add c. 21 to the already completed Gospel?

(1) It has been suggested that c. 21 was added as a kind of postscript, because it was thought important that the rehabilitation of Peter should be placed on record. Of this there is no account in the Synoptists or in Jn. cc. 1–20. His denial is narrated in detail by all the evangelists, but his forgiveness and restoration to apostolic leadership is assumed without any explanation. That at some moment after the Resurrection he regained his old position of leader is manifest from the narrative of Acts. How were the other apostles reassured as to his stability? The beautiful story of 21:15–19 is the only explanation that has been preserved, whatever be its source; and it is easy to realise that the Church at the end of the first century would be anxious to have it placed on record, more especially after Peter’s career had been ended by a martyr’s death. The statement in v. 24 that the story was certified by the Beloved Disciple, i.e. in our view by John the son of Zebedee, who at the time of its being added to the Fourth Gospel was the only living person who could bear witness to its truth, is in no way improbable. How Peter came to be restored to his apostolic office would not seem to the first generation of Christians to be a question of sufficient importance for inclusion in a Gospel, but when the second generation began to look back it was recognised as of peculiar interest.

(2) But the principal motive for the addition of c. 21 was, no doubt, that misapprehensions as to the meaning of some words of Jesus might be removed.

The enigmatical promise (Mk. 9:1 and parallels) that there were some among the disciples of Jesus who would not die until “the kingdom of God came with power” must have made a profound impression (see on 1:51). Maran Atha was the watchword of apostolic Christianity (1 Cor. 16:22), and at first it was expected that the Parousia (cf. 14:3 and 1 Jn. 2:28) would come soon. Paul at one time thought that some of his contemporaries would live to see it (1 Thess. 4:15, 1 Cor. 15:51). By the time that the Fourth Gospel was written, the hope of the speedy return of Christ was dying out; but it was still believed by some that the Lord had promised (either in the words preserved in 21:22, or in similar words such as Mk. 9:1) that it would come to pass before all the apostles died. Accordingly, when the last survivor, John the son of Zebedee, was manifestly approaching the end of his course, there must have been some at least who were disconcerted. It was probably to reassure them that the story of the promise made by Jesus to John was added to the Gospel which was based on his reminiscences, and attention directed to its exact phrasing. vv. 21–23 may have been written down after the death of John; but it seems more probable that the true account of this incident was gathered from his lips during the last days of his long life.

The Appendix, then, embodies a tradition that was current as to an appearance of the Risen Christ in Galilee, which is also used (but misplaced) by Lk. In c. 21, it appears in a version for some details of which the authority of the Beloved Disciple is expressly claimed (v. 24); but it would seem that it has been edited (vv. 1, 14) by Jn. so as to bring it into harmony with c. 20. The Gospel proper contained only such incidents and sayings of Jesus as would serve the special purpose of the writer (20:30, 31); but before it was issued to the Christian community it was thought desirable to add an Appendix embodying traditions about Peter and John of which incorrect versions were current.

21:1. μετὰ ταῦτα. This introductory phrase does not connote strict sequence.¹ It is used by Jn. to introduce a fresh section of his narrative, and hardly means more than “another time.”

ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτόν. For φανερόω (cf. v. 14) and its use in Jn., see on 1:31. It is the verb used in the Appendix to Mk. (16:12, 14) of the manifestations of the Risen Jesus to the two at Emmaus, and to the Eleven. He was not visible continuously between His Resurrection and final Departure.

τοῖς μαθηταῖς. Not to the Eleven, but to some of them only. οἱ μαθηταί might stand for “disciples” in the wider sense (see on 2:2), but that is not probable at this point, as we shall see.

ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος, “by the Sea of Tiberias.” For this description of the Sea of Galilee, see on 6:1. According to the Marcan tradition (Mk. 16:7, Mt. 28:7), Jesus was to manifest Himself in Galilee (cf. Mt. 28:16). Of any appearances there, the Gospels of Lk. and Jn. tell nothing, but in this Appendix to the Fourth Gospel one such manifestation is described in detail, implying (as the story is told by Jn.) that, after the three appearances at Jerusalem described in c. 20, some of the Eleven (at least) returned to Galilee, where Jesus met them. But see note above, p. 656.

πάλιν (a favourite Johannine word, cf. 1:35) is placed before ἑαυτόν by א* and before ἐφανέρωσεν by D. It is omitted by some cursives.

ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ οὕτως. This brusque constr. does not appear again in exactly this form in Jn.; but cf. 4:6, ἐκαθέζετο οὕτως ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ.

2. According to Pseudo-Peter (see p. 691 above), the disciples remained in Jerusalem until the end of the Passover Feast, when some returned to their homes in Galilee. This falls in with c. 21.

Peter and the sons of Zebedee were fishermen, who took up their work in partnership, as they had been accustomed to do (Mk. 1:16). ἦσαν ὁμοῦ, “they were together,” and with them were Nathanael and also Thomas. The words ἄλλοι ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ δύο suggest that all seven who were present were of the Twelve, for οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ generally represents the Twelve in the Fourth Gospel. οἱ μαθηταί (without αὐτοῦ) in vv. 4, 12 stands for the seven who have been already mentioned. See for this usage on 2:2.

Nonnus, in his paraphrase of Jn., like Pseudo-Peter, says that Andrew was present on this occasion, and he may have been one of the two innominati; it would be natural that he would, as formerly, accompany Peter in his fishing. Pseudo-Peter represents “Levi the son of Alphæus” as one of the company, and it is possible that this is a true tradition and that he was the second unnamed disciple, although we should hardly expect that a former tax-gatherer (Mk. 2:14) would be of use in a fishing-boat. If we had to guess at the second innominatus, the name of Philip would naturally suggest itself. He was of Bethsaida, as were Peter and Andrew (1:44); and in the lists of the apostles he always appears among the first five, with Peter, Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee (Mk. 3:18, Mt. 10:2, Lk. 6:14, Acts 1:13). He is also associated with Peter, Andrew, and John, and with Nathanael in 1:37–46. The seven disciples present on the occasion now to be described would then be the seven most prominent in the Fourth Gospel and the seven who are named first in Acts 1:13. But the evidence as to the two innominati is not sufficient for certainty.

Σίμων Πέτρος. See on 18:15 for the full name being used at the beginning of a new section, as is the habit of Jn.

Θῶμας ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος. So he is described 11:16, where see note; cf. 20:24.

καὶ Ναθαναὴλ ὁ ἀπὸ Κανᾶ τῆς Γαλ. There is no reason for supposing (with Schmiedel) that this description is made up from a comparison of 1:45 and 2:1, or that it does not represent a genuine tradition as to Nathanael’s home. See on 1:45.

οἱ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου. Zebedee’s name is not mentioned elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel. “The sons of Zebedee,” their names not being stated, is a phrase occurring Mt. 20:20, 26:37, 27:56.

3. λέγει αὐτοῖς Σίμων Πέτρος. He characteristically takes the lead, saying, “I am off to fish.” For ὑπάγω, see on 7:33. The verb ἁλιεύειν occurs in the Greek Bible only once elsewhere, at Jer. 16:16.

To repeat the full name Σίμων Πέτρος is not in accordance with Jn.’s habit (see on 18:15); cf. vv. 7, 11, 15.

καὶ ἡμεῖς σὺν σοί. σύν is not a favourite Johannine word, occurring only twice in Jn. (see on 12:2, 18:1).

ἐξῆλθον, “they went out,” not necessarily from the same house, but from the place where they were all gathered.

ἐνέβησαν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. For this phrase, see on 6:17. The rec. has ἀνέβησαν. Probably τὸ πλοῖον was the large boat which they were accustomed to use as they went about the lake with Jesus (see on 6:1).

ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἐπίασαν οὐδέν. This recalls Lk. 5:5; the night is the best time for fishing, and yet they caught nothing. πιάζειν is used several times by Jn. (see on 7:30) of “arresting” or “taking” Jesus; but to use it of the catching of fish, as here and at v. 10, is curious. Cf. Cant. 2:15, Rev. 19:20.

4. πρωΐας δὲ ἤδη γινομένης, “when dawn was now breaking,” and the light not yet good. Jn. never has πρωΐα in the body of the Gospel, while πρωΐ occurs 18:28, 20:1 (see also on 1:41). Mt. has πρωΐα (Mt. 27:1).

For γινομένης (A B C*LΘ), the rec. has γενομένης (א D N W Γ Δ Θ).

ἔστη Ἰησοῦς ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν. ἐπί is read by א A D L Θ (cf. Mt. 13:2, 48, Acts 21:5 ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν); but B C N W have εἰς (cf. Acts 27:40 εἰς τὸν αἰγιαλόν “towards the beach”). Perhaps εἰς has come in here through assimilation to ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον (20:19, 26, where see note).

For ᾔδεισαν followed by the historic present ἐστίν, see on 1:39. That disciples, who had so recently seen the Risen Lord twice, according to the Johannine tradition (20:19, 26), should not recognise Him, even after He had spoken to them, might, perhaps, be accounted for by their distance from the shore and the dimness of the early morning light. Again, the failure of the two disciples at Emmaus to identify Him at first (Lk. 24:31); and the failure of Mary Magdalene to recognise Him when she saw Him (20:14 οὐκ ᾔδει ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστίν, words identical with those used here) may be taken as showing that the Risen Lord was not recognisable, unless He chose “to manifest Himself.” The latter may be the true explanation.¹ But the present instance of the disciples’ failure to recognise Him is perplexing, for (according to Jn.) they had already seen Him; even if we do not lay stress on the Marcan tradition according to which they had been told that they might expect to see Him in Galilee.

5. λέγει … Ἰησοῦς. The rec. inserts ὁ before Ἰης. with A²C D L N Θ, but om. א B.

παιδία is not put into the mouth of Jesus in any other Gospel passage, when He is addressing His disciples. It is a colloquial form of address, as we might say “My boys,” or “lads,” if calling to a knot of strangers of a lower social class. παιδίον is thus used in Aristophanes (Nub. 137, Ran. 33). The use of παιδία in 1 Jn. 2:13, 18 is different.

Jesus says τεκνία to the disciples at 13:33, but to have employed a tender term of this kind would at once have betrayed His identity by the lake-side.

μή τι προσφάγιον ἔχετε; i.e. “have you caught any fish?” Wetstein (approved by Field) quotes a scholium on Aristoph. Clouds, 731, viz. ἔχεις τι; schol. χαριέντως τὸ · ἔχεις τι τῇ τῶν ἀγρευτῶν λέξει χρώμενος · τοῖς γὰρ ἁλιεῦσιν ἤ ὀρνιθαγρευταῖς οὕτω φασίν· ἔχεις τι; That is to say, ἔχεις τι is the phrase in which a bystander would say to a fisherman or fowler, “Have you had any sport?” προσφάγιον, lit. a “relish,” something to season food, is a Hellenistic word like όψον or ὀψάριον for “fish,” which was the relish in common use. See on v. 10 below. προσφάγιον is not found elsewhere in the Greek Bible.

The form of the question, beginning with μή, suggests that a negative answer is expected (see on 6:67),¹ so that we may render “Boys, you have not had any catch, have you?” And, accordingly, they answered, “No.” See on 4:29.

6. Then Jesus, perhaps having noticed from the shore that a shoal of fish was gathering at the farther side of the boat, calls to the fishermen, “Cast your net towards the right of the boat, and you will have a take.”

εις τα δεξια μερη τοῦ πλοιου is a cumbrous phrase for which no linguistic parallel seems to be forthcoming. In Lk. 5:4 the advice of Jesus was similar, although expressed differently, viz. to let down the nets in deeper water. As the story is told, it would seem that Peter jumped into the water on the side of the boat nearest the land, being unimpeded by the net which now was on the other (the right) side, farther from the shore.²

δίκτυον does not occur again in Jn., and is the word used Lk. 5:2, 4, 5; but nothing can be inferred from this, as it is the common word for a fishing-net.

After εὑρήσετε, א^ca and several Latin texts mostly of the Irish school (e.g., ardmach, dim., stowe, corp., and Rawl. 167³) interpolate Lk. 5:5, “but they said, Master, we toiled all night and took nothing; but at Thy word we will let down the net.” This interpolation shows that the similarity between the two narratives of a great draught of fishes in Lk. and Jn. had been observed long before the dawn of modern criticism.

καὶ οὐκέτι αὐτὸ ἑλκύσαι ἴσχυον. The rec. has ἴσχυσαν but the more vivid ἴσχυον is read by א B C D L N. For the verb ἑλκύειν see on 6:44. ἰσχύειν is not found in the body of the Gospel.

ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἰχθύων. For the same constr cf. 2 Chron. 5:6 of the animals that “could not be numbered for multitude,” οἳ οὐ λογισθήσονται ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους. Nothing is said here of the breaking of the net, which Simon and Andrew feared in the parallel story (Lk. 5:6).

The Sea of Galilee still swarms with fish;¹ and it is noteworthy that this great catch is not described as a σημεῖον, nor is it suggested that it was miraculous.

7. We have identified the Beloved Disciple with John the son of Zebedee (see on 13:23, and Introd., pp. xxxv ff.). This identification agrees well with the statement of v. 2 that the sons of Zebedee were present on this occasion; although v. 2 does not by itself prove this, for the Beloved Disciple might be one of the two innominati.

The Beloved Disciple is the first to recognise Jesus, while Peter is the first to act on the knowledge that the stranger on the beach is He. This is entirely congruous with all that the Gospels tell of the two men, the one a spiritual genius, the other an eager, impulsive, warm-hearted leader.

Peter, while working the boat and the nets, was γύμνος, i.e. he was naked except for a waist-cloth; but before leaping into the water, he threw on his upper garment, and fastened it with a belt. ἐπενδύτης is not found elsewhere in the N.T., but cf. 1 Sam. 18:4 where Jonathan presents David with his ἐπενδύτης as a personal gift. Meyer says that the Talmud takes over the word in the form אפונדתא, using it to describe a labourer’s frock.

The verb διεζώσατο signifies that Peter tucked the garment up into his girdle before he waded ashore in the shallow water (cf. 13:4).

Syr. sin. adds, after the words “he cast himself into the sea,” the gloss “and came swimming.” The paraphrase of Nonnus also speaks of Peter swimming; and this may be intended by the Greek, but in fact the ἐπενδύτης or long garment which Peter put on would only have been an impediment if he had to swim ashore.¹

Nothing is said of any conversation between Peter and the Risen Jesus at this point of the story (cf. contra, Lk. 5:8).

8. The other disciples wished to get to shore as soon as they could, and to bring their catch with them; but the big fishing boat (τὸ πλοῖον, v. 3) could not come closer in the shallow water, so they came (there were only six of them) in the dinghy (τὸ πλοιάριον, cf. 6:22 and the note there), the distance being only about 100 yards.

ἀπὸ πηχῶν διακοσίων, “200 cubits off.” For this constr. of ἀπό see on 11:18. πήχεων is contracted into πηχῶν as in Ezek. 40:7, 41:21, Rev. 21:17, etc.

σύροντες τὸ δίκτυον κτλ., “towing the net full of fishes,” i.e. having attached the ropes of the net to the dinghy. σύρειν does not occur again in Jn.; it is used, as here, of dragging towards one a net full of fish by Plutarch, de sollertia animalium c. 26.

9. ἀπέβησαν, “they disembarked.” ἀποβαίνειν does not occur again in Jn.; and it is noteworthy that the only other place in the Greek Bible where it is found in the sense of “disembark” is Lk. 5:2 (cf. Abbott, Diat. 1763).

For ἀνθρακιάν, see on 18:18. The Vulg. rendering of ἀνθρακιὰν κειμένην is prunas positas; but some O.L. texts have carbones positos, while others (a b c ff₂r) have carbones incensos, as if they read ἀνθρακιὰν καιομένην. It is possible that this is the original reading, for καιομένην would readily be corrupted into κειμένην, more expecially as ἐπικείμενον follows in the next line.

ὡς οὖν ἀπέβησαν. ὡς οὖν is thoroughly Johannine; see on 4:40.

ὀψάριον. We have had the word ὀψάρια already at 6:9, where it probably means “dried fish” (see note in loc.). But here the ὀψάρια (v. 10) are the fresh fish which had just been caught, and in v. 11 the net is said to have been full “of great fishes.” In fact, despite the derivation of the word, ὀψάριον came to mean “a fish” or “fish” vaguely, whether fresh caught or dried; just as πᾶν τὸ ὄψος τῆς θαλάσσης in Num. 11:22 means “all the fish of the sea.” See on v. 5.

The ὀψάριον which was cooking on the fire was not one of the fish which had just been caught; for it is only after the disciples see it that the net is drawn ashore. It was provided, along with the bread, by Jesus. Some have thought that the singular forms ὀψάριον, ἄρτον, are significant; and that there is here an allusion to a sacramental meal—one fish, one loaf. But neither ὀψάριον nor ἄρτον necessarily signify one fish or one loaf only; both may be taken generally as “fish,” “bread.” See further, on v. 13.

The story of Lk. 24:42, where the disciples give Jesus a piece of broiled fish (ἰχθύος ὀπτοῦ μέρος), presents some likeness to the present passage, but there the Risen Jesus asks for food (cf. 21:5) and eats it. Jn. does not say that He ate anything, but only that He presided at the meal by the lake-side.

10. Ἐνέγκατε ἀπὸ τῶν ὀψ. κτλ., “bring of the fish which you caught just now.” Prima facie, the story suggests that the fish on the fire was for the breakfast of Jesus Himself, and that He now invites the fishermen to bring some of the fish that they had caught, to cook them, and join Him at His meal. But this is not said directly.

11. ἀνέβη οὖν Σ. Π. “So Peter,” in obedience to the authoritative direction of Jesus, “went aboard” the dinghy, or little boat. Peter is always foremost in action.

καὶ εἳλκυσεν τὸ δίκτυον κτλ., “and drew the net to land,” which was easier to do than to haul it over the gunwale into the dinghy.

μεστὸν ἰχθύων μεγάλων κτλ. Cf. Lk. 5:6 ἰχθύων πλῆθος πολύ. Unlike the story in Lk., where the net was breaking (διερρήγνυτο τὸ δίκτυον), it is noted here as remarkable, οὐκ ἐσχίσθη τὸ δίκτυον.

The simplest explanation of the number of fish, 153, being recorded, is that (as fishermen are wont to do, because the catch has to be divided into shares) the fish were counted, and their great number remembered as a notable thing. But commentators, both ancient and modern, have not been content with this, and have sought for a symbolic meaning in the number 153, which they (in modern times at least) assume was invented in order to suggest something esoteric. See Introd., p. lxxxvii.

12. Jesus calls to the disciples, Δεῦτε ἀριστήσατε, “Come and break your fast” (cf. for the constr. δεῦτε, ἴδετε κτλ., 4:29). ἄριστον was the morning meal (Mt. 22:4, Lk. 11:38, 14:12); the verb ἀριστᾶν occurs again in N.T. only at Lk. 11:37 Nothing is said of the cooking of any of the fish that had been caught, but the command of v. 10 suggests that it was thus that the disciples’ breakfast was provided.

οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα κτλ. The intimate familiarity of the old days had passed; they knew that it was Jesus who was speaking to them, but they did not dare to question Him as to His identity (cf. 4:27). Chrysostom says that they sat down for the meal in silence and trepidation, which may be implied.

οὐδεὶς … τῶν μαθητῶν. For this constr., without ἐκ before the gen. plural, as usual in Jn. (see on 1:40, 7:19), cf. 13:28. On μαθηταί, see 2:2.

εἰδότες ὅτι ὁ κύριός ἐστιν. It was not as at the Emmaus supper, where He was not recognised until He blessed and broke the bread (Lk. 24:30); here He was recognised before the meal began.

τολμᾶν and ἐξετάζειν do not occur in the body of the Gospel. For ἐξετάζειν, “to cross-examine,” cf. Mt. 2:8, Ecclus. 11:7; it is a natural word to use in this context.

13. ἔρχεται has been thought to imply that Jesus was standing at a distance from the lighted fire, and that He came to it only when the disciples were gathered for their breakfast. But ἔρχεται goes with λαμβάνει which follows (cf. ἔρχεται … καὶ λέγει, 12:22), and hardly needs explanation, or a reference to 20:26.

λαμβάνει τὸν ἄρτον καὶ δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς. Syr. sin. and D insert εὐχαριστήσας before δίδωσιν, this being evidently introduced from 6:11, to the language of which v. 13 is closely similar. No eucharistic meal is implied at 6:11 (see note in loc.), and there is here even less suggestion of such a thing. τὸν ἄρτον and τὸ ὄψάριον do not indicate one loaf and one fish (see on v. 9); indeed the command “bring of the fish which you caught” (v. 10) implies that several fish had been prepared for the disciples` breakfast. That Jesus “took” and “gave” them bread and fish, as before (cf. Mk. 6:41, 8:6, Mt. 14:19, 15:36, Lk. 9:16), means only that He presided at the meal, as His custom had always been.

With τὸ ὀψάριον ὁμοίως, cf. ὁμοίως καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀψαρίων (6:11).

14. With the constr. τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον, cf. τοῦτο πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον (4:54), and see 2:11. In both these passages (2:11, 4:54), Jn. implies a correction of Mk.’s narrative, and it is probable that here too a correction of the Galilæan tradition as to the appearance by the lake-side is intended. Jesus did not first manifest Himself to the apostles in Galilee (Mt. 28:16); He manifested Himself to them twice at Jerusalem (20:19, 26), and not until after that (τρίτον) did He show Himself in Galilee. v. 14 seems to be an addition made by Jn. to his source.

ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν. Cf. 2:22, 12:9, 17. ἀναστῆναι was the verb used 20:9.

15. ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν, when the breakfast was over. Jn. is fond of these notes of time. See on 1:29.

Σίμων Ἰωάνου. This is the better reading (א*B C D L W), as against Σίμων Ἰωνᾶ of the rec. text; and so also at vv. 16, 17.

Note that we have here Σίμων Ἰωάνου three times, instead of Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάνου, as at 1:42.

Jesus addresses him by the personal name by which he was generally known, “Simon, son of John,” as He was accustomed to do. See on 1:42 for the designation Peter, which, it is to be observed, Jesus only uses once (Lk. 22:34) in addressing the apostle. Cf. Mt. 16:17, Lk. 22:31.

Peter had thrice denied His Master, and the solemn questioning of him, in the company of his fellow-disciples, as the prelude to his restoration to the Master’s favour and the renewal of His confidence, was fittingly repeated thrice. As Augustine has it, he was questioned “donec trina voce amoris, solueret trinam uocem negationis.”¹ The questioning has reference to one thing only, and that is Peter’s love for Jesus. He is not asked to renew his confession of faith (probably that had never quite left him, his Master having prayed that it should not fail, Lk. 22:32), nor is he asked if he is sure that he will be more courageous in the future than in the past. The Lord does not remind him in words of his failure when the great test came. If he loves, that is enough. This is the one essential condition of the apostolic office and ministry.

Attention has often been directed to the use of the two verbs ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν in these verses; Jesus asking ἀγαπᾷς με twice, Peter answering φιλῶ σε, and on the third occasion of His query, Jesus changing the verb and saying φιλεῖς με, taking up Peter’s own word. This distinction of verbs is not treated as significant by the ancient commentators, Syriac, Greek, or Latin (Ambrose in Lc. x. 176 being perhaps an exception); and, when the delight of Origen, e.g., in playing on words is remembered, this is sufficient to show that the patristic expositors did not venture sharply to differentiate ἀγαπᾶν from φιλεῖν. But in modern times, the exegesis of the passage has largely turned on the idea that whereas Peter will say φιλῶ σε, he does not presume to claim that he can say ἀγαπῶ σε, ἀγαπᾶν being the more lofty word.¹ It is necessary, then, to examine the usage of ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν more closely.

Of these two words it may be said that φιλεῖν is the more comprehensive, and includes every degree and kind of love or liking, while ἀγαπᾶν is the more dignified and restrained. But even so vague a distinction cannot be pressed very far. Both verbs are used in classical Greek to express sexual love (cf. Lucian, Ver Hist. ii. 25, and Aristotle, Topica, i. 15 [106, b 2]).² So, in like manner, in the LXX sexual love is indicated by ἀγάπη, ἀγαπᾶν, at 2 Sam. 13:4, Cant. 2:5, 7:6 etc., and by φιλία at Ecclus. 9:8, Prov. 7:18 (in which latter passage Aquila and Theodotion give ἀγάπη.) In Xenophon (Memorabilia, 11. vii. §§ 9 and 12), φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾶν are used interchangeably, both indicating in turn affection (not sexual) and esteem. Cf. Ælian, Var. Hist. ix. 4, where it is said of a man’s relations with his brothers, πάνυ σφόδρα ἀγαπήσας αὐτοὺς καὶ ὑπʼ αὐτῶν φιληθεὶς ἐν τῷ μέρει.

An analysis of the passages in which φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾶν occur in Jn. shows that they are practically synonyms in the Fourth Gospel.

Both verbs are used of God’s love for man: ἀγαπᾶν at 3:16 (where see note) 14:23, 17:23, 1 Jn. 4:10, 19, etc., but φιλεῖν at 16:27 (cf. Rev. 3:19).

Both verbs are used of the Father’s love for the Son: ἀγαπᾶν at 3:35, 10:17, 15:9, 17:23, 24, 26 (cf. ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, Mk. 9:7), but φιλεῖν at 5:20.

Both verbs are used of Jesus’ love for men: ἀγαπᾶν at 11:5, 13:1, 23, 34, 14:21, 15:9, 19:26, 21:7, 20, but φιλεῖν at 11:3, 36, 20:2. The last reference is specially noteworthy, as at 20:2 the beloved disciple is described as he ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, while we generally have ὃν ἠγάπα (13:23, 19:26).

Both verbs are used of the love of men for other men: ἀγαπᾶν at 13:34, 15:12, 17, 1 Jn. 2:10, 3:10, 14, 23, 4:7, 20, but φιλεῖν at 15:19. The noun ἀγάπη is used for the love of men for each other at 13:35, 15:13, 1 Jn. 4:7; but the word that came to be specially appropriated to the brotherly love of Christian for Christian was not ἀγάπη but φιλαδελφία (see on 13:34, and cf. Tit. 3:15).

Both verbs are used of the love of men for Jesus: ἀγαπᾶν at 8:42, 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28, 21:15, 16, but φιλεῖν at 16:27, 21:15, 16, 17 (cf. Mt. 10:37, 1 Cor. 16:22).

The love of men for God is generally described in the LXX by ἀγαπᾶν (Ex. 20:6) or ἀγάπη (Wisd. 3:9); but in Prov. 8:17 we have φιλεῖν (ἐγὼ τοὺς ἐμὲ φιλοῦντας ἀγαπῶ¹). In this sense we have ἀγάπη at 5:42, 1 Jn. 2:5, 15, 3:17, and ἀγαπᾶν at 1 Jn. 4:19, 20, 21, 5:2 (not in the Gospel).

The love of Jesus for the Father is mentioned only once in the N.T., viz. at 14:31 (where see note), and there the verb is ἀγαπᾶν.

Having regard to these facts, it would be precarious to lay stress on the change of ἀγαπᾷς in vv. 15 and 16 to φιλεῖς in v. 17. And a closer examination gives further reason for treating them as synonymous here.

First, it is clear that the author uses them as synonymous. Jn. purports to give a translation in Greek of Aramaic words spoken by Jesus. He makes Jesus say ἀγαπᾷς με in vv. 15, 16, and φιλεῖς με in v. 17; but by prefixing τὸ τρίτον to φιλεῖς με in the latter passage (cf. δεύτερον in v. 16), he seems to make it plain that the verbs are to be taken as identical in meaning, and to exclude the idea that a new thought is introduced by the use of φιλεῖς.

Secondly, Peter is represented as saying “Yes” to the question ἀγαπᾷς με; ναί, φιλῶ σε is his answer. This is fatal to the idea that Peter will not claim that he loves Jesus with the higher form of love called ἀγάπη, but that he ventures only to say that he has φιλία for his Master. For why should he say “Yes,” if he means “No”?

Thirdly, the Syriac versions (both Old Syriac and Peshitta) use the same word to render ἀγαπᾷς and φιλεῖς in this passage, although two Syriac words were at their disposal. And this is the more remarkable because the Curetonian and Peshitta in rendering ἀγαπᾶν at 14:21, where it occurs 3 times, use both the available Syriac words without distinction.¹

In this connexion it is significant that ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν are indifferently used in the LXX to translate the Hebr. אָהֵב; this Hebrew root being nearly always behind ἀγαπᾶν, and always behind φιλεῖν except when φιλεῖν means “to kiss,” when it represents נָשַׁק.

The Vulgate Latin distinguishes ἀγαπᾷς and φιλεῖς by the respective renderings diligis and amas;² but the O.L. texts a e have amas throughout, in this agreeing with the Syriac. No distinction is drawn between ἀγαπᾷς and φιλεῖς here in the Arabic version of Tatian’s Diatessaron.

We conclude that we must treat ἀγαπᾷς and φιλεῖς in vv 15–17 as synonymous, as all the patristic expositors do.

What is the meaning of πλέον τούτων? It has been generally understood as meaning “more than your companions, the other apostles, love me”; and this yields a good sense. Peter had claimed that his loyalty surpassed that of the rest (Mk. 14:29; and cf. 13:37). He had taken precedence of the others, in speech (6:68) and act (18:10), more than once. And the question of Jesus may mean, “Do you really love me more than the others do, as your forwardness in acting as their leader used to suggest?” But (a) if this be the meaning, the construction is elliptical and ambiguous. We should expect the personal pronoun σύ to be introduced before or after ἀγαπᾷς to mark the emphasis; (b) comparisons of this kind, sc. between the love which this or that disciple displays or entertains, seem out of place on the lips of Jesus. To ask Peter if his love for his Master exceeds the love which, e.g., the Beloved Disciple cherished for Him, would be a severe test; and the question would be one which Peter could never answer with confidence.

Does, then, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; mean “lovest thou me more than these things?” sc. the boat and the nets and the fishing, to which Peter had returned after the Passion and the Resurrection of his Master. This interpretation is, indeed, unattractive; but it may possibly be right, and it is free from some difficulties which beset the usual interpretation.

At any rate, Peter in his reply takes no notice of πλέον τούτων. If he had ever intended to claim that his affection for his Master was greater than that of his companions, he does so no longer. Nor does he rest his answer on his own feelings alone. His fall had taught him humility. “Yea, Lord, thou knowest (σὺ οἶδας) that I love thee” (φιλῶ σε, with which cf. 16:27). He rests his case on the Master’s insight into his heart.

The answer of Jesus accepts Peter’s assurance: “Feed my lambs.” The Lord “confides those whom He loves to the man who loves Him” (Luthardt). At the time of his call, the charge to Peter was that he was to be a “fisher” of men (Mt. 4:19, Mk. 1:17, Lk. 5:10); and such was his work as an apostle, during the days of his Master’s visible presence and control. But that would not be sufficient for an apostolic ministry, when Jesus had departed. Henceforth the ministry consists not only of “catching” men, but of guiding and guarding them in their new spiritual environment. And so the image now used at Peter’s second “call” is not that of the fisher, but of the shepherd, whose tender devotion must take as its exemplar the life of the Good Shepherd of 10:11–16.

Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου is the charge committed to him by the Chief Pastor in the first instance. The charge is repeated in varying forms in vv. 16, 17, and it is not easy either to determine the true text in each case or, having determined it, to decide whether the changes of verbs and nouns are significant for Jn.

In vv. 15, 17, the verb is βόσκε; in v. 16 it is ποίμαινε. In the Synoptists βόσκειν is always used of feeding swine; but it is regularly used in the LXX of feeding sheep (e.g. Gen. 29:7, 37:12), and in Ezek. 34:2 in a metaphorical sense (as here) of a pastor feeding his flock with spiritual food.

ποιμαίνειν is, etymologically, a verb of wider connotation, covering all duties that pertain to a ποιμήν or shepherd, guiding and guarding, as well as feeding the flock. It occurs again Lk. 17:7, 1 Cor 9:7, in its literal sense, and in the spiritual sense of “shepherding” Acts 20:28, 1 Pet. 5:2, Rev. 2:27, 7:17 etc. But it is doubtful if ποίμαινε of v. 16 should be understood as different from βόσκε of vv. 15, 17. ποιμαίνειν is used in the LXX of feeding sheep, exactly as βόσκειν is (e.g. Gen. 30:31, 37:2), and so too in its spiritual significance, e.g. Ps. 23:1 ὁ κύριος ποιμαίνει με, and Ezek. 34:10 τοῦ μή ποιμαίνειν τά πρόβατα μου.

The Vulgate has in vv. 15, 16, 17, pasce … pasce … pasce, no attempt being made to distinguish the Greek verbs; and it would be rash to assume that different Aramaic words lie behind βόσκε and ποίμαινε respectively in the present passage, more particularly as in the LXX βόσκειν and ποιμαίνειν are used indifferently to translate רָעָה.

We now turn to the various words used to describe the flock who are to be tended, and here we have to do with conflicting readings:

In v. 16, προβάτια is read by B C as against πρόβατα, which has the support of א A D N Γ Δ.

In v. 17, πρόβατα is read by א D N Γ Δ, as against A B C, which have προβάτια.

A careful study of the Syriac versions by Burkitt leads him to the conclusion that ἀρνία … προβάτια … πρόβατα were probably the original Greek words behind the Syriac.¹ With this, the Latin Vulgate agnos … agnos … oves agrees, for προβάτια as a diminutive may be very well represented by agnos. The O.L. versions, for the most part, do not distinguish, and give oves three times; but there are also traces of a reading oviculas in vv. 16, 17.

These variants indicate, as it seems, that two or three different Aramaic words lie behind the Greek, although such an inference is not certain, having regard to what has been said above in relation to ἀγαπᾶν—φιλεῖν and βόσκειν–ποιμαίνειν. And we incline to adopt the readings ἀρνία … προβάτια … πρόβατα in vv. 15, 16, 17 respectively, although the uncial evidence for προβάτια in v. 16 is not very strong. Hence the charge to Peter first entrusts to his care the lambs, then the young sheep, and lastly the whole flock, young and old.

With ἀρνία, προβάτια, may be compared τεκνία of 13:33. This use of diminutives indicates a tenderness in the speaker’s words. ἀρνίον occurs in the N.T. elsewhere only in the Apocalpyse, where it is used 29 times of the Lamb of God (see on 1:29): it is infrequent in the LXX. προβάτιον does not appear again in the Greek Bible.

Some commentators (who find in the delivery of the special charge “Feed my lambs, … my sheep” to Peter individually, an indication of his being entrusted with a higher commission than that of the other apostles) interpret the “lambs” the faithful laity, while the “sheep” whom Peter was to feed typify other pastors. This is anachronistic exegesis, but hardly more so than the interpretation which finds in this passage an anticipation of the primacy of the Roman See. Such thoughts were outside the purview of Christians at the time when the Fourth Gospel was published.¹

16. λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον. For this tautological phrase, see on 4:54.

Σίμων Ἰωάνου, ἀγαπᾷς με; The “more than these” of v. 15 is now dropped. And Peter’s answer is the same as before: ναί, … φιλῶ σε. The reply ποίμαινε τὰ προβάτιά μου is only to be distinguished from βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου (v. 15) or βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου (v. 17), in so far as it entrusts a different section of the flock to the pastoral care of Peter. To distinguish ποιμαίνειν from βόσκειν here is a modern subtlety, unknown to Christian antiquity; and it has been shown above to be without support from the LXX use of these verbs, which consistently represent the same Hebrew root.

17. τὸ τρίτον. Cf. δεύτερον in v. 16. This is the same question as before, repeated for the third time, and not a new question, as it would be if φιλεῖς με; were different in meaning from ἀγαπᾷς με; of vv. 15, 16.

ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος. He knew that he had given cause for the doubting of his love, and it grieved him that his repeated assurance that it still inspired him was not treated as sufficient by his Master. For ὁ Πέτρος here, see on 18:15.

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. א B C D Θ prefix καί, which is omitted by A. For εἶπεν (B CΓ Δ), א A D W Θ have λέγει.

Peter leaves out ναί in this third answer. He appeals to the knowledge of his feelings which he is assured Jesus must have.

πάντα σὺ οἶδας (cf. 16:30). Long before this, the chosen companions of Jesus had learnt that His insight into human character and motive was unerring; cf. 2:25 αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκεν τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, the verb γινώσκειν, of immediate observation, being used there, as here.

Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου. This is the final charge, pasce oues meas. τὰ πρόβατα includes the whole flock, young and old.

Prediction of Peter’s Martyrdom (vv. 18, 19); And a Misunderstood Saying About John (vv. 20–23)

18, 19. ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι. When Jesus warned Peter that he would deny Him, he prefaced the warning by the same impressive phrase (13:38; see on 1:51).

There is no explicit reference to Peter’s death in the words which follow. He has been bidden to feed the Lord’s sheep, and he is reminded that, although, when he was young, he was unfettered and able to follow his own wishes, yet when he grew old he would be obliged to yield to the will of others. At this time he was no longer a youth; he had been married for some time (cf. Mt. 8:14), and was approaching middle life. The words ἐζώννυες σεαυτὸν … ἄλλος ζώσει σε may point only to the contrast between the alertness of youth and the helplessness of old age, which cannot always do what it would; and ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου may refer merely to the old man stretching out his hands that others may help him in putting on his garments, whereas the young man girds himself unassisted, before he sets out to walk (περιπατεῖν).

Further, ζώννυμι (only again at Acts 12:8 in the N.T.) is always used in the LXX, as in Greek generally, of girding on clothes or armour,¹ and no instance is forthcoming of its use in the sense of binding a criminal, which must be supposed to be the meaning of ἄλλος ζώσει σε if the Lord’s words are taken as predictive of Peter’s martyrdom. The order of the clauses in v. 18 is also strange if crucifixion was in the mind of the speaker; for we should expect the extension of the hands to be mentioned last.

On the other hand, this feature of death by crucifixion, that the hands were extended upon the cross, is specially mentioned as its characteristic by other writers. Wetstein quotes Artem. Oniv. i. 76, κακοῦργος δὲ ὢν σταυρωθήσεται διὰ τὸ ὕψος καὶ τὴν τῶν χειρῶν ἔκτασιν, and Arrian, Epict. iii. 26, ἐκτείνας σεαυτὸν ὡς οἱ ἐσταυρωμένοι. Field adds a quotation from Dion. Hal. Ant. vii. 69, οἱ δʼ ἄγοντες τὸν θεράποντα ἐπὶ τὴν τιμωρίαν, τὰς

More significant than these parallels, however, is the fact that several early Christian writers treat ἔκτασις τῶν χειρῶν or a like phrase as a sufficient description by itself of crucifixion. Thus Barnabas (§ 12) finds a τύπος σταυροῦ in the extension of Moses’ hands during the battle with Amalek (Ex. 17:12). Justin has the same idea: Μωυσῆς … τὰς χεῖρας ἑκατέρως ἐκπετάσας, and again, διὰ τοῦ τύπου τῆς ἐκτάσεως τῶν χεῖρων (Tryph. 90, 91). Irenæus reports the same exegesis as that of one of his predecessors, ὡς ἔφη τις τῶν προβεβηκότων, διὰ τῆς (θείας) ἐκτάσεως τῶν χειρῶν (Hœr. v. 17. 4; cf. Dem. 46).² Or, again, the words of Isa. 65:2, “I have spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people,” are regarded as a prophecy of the Crucifixion by Barnabas (§ 12), Justin (Apol. i. 35), Irenæus (Dem. 79), and Cyprian (Test. ii. 20). Cyprian in the same passage quotes also Ps. 88:9 and Ps. 141:2 as predictive of the Cross, although there is nothing in either verse suggestive of it, except that the Psalmist speaks of the “spreading out” or the “lifting up” of his hands in prayer. And, finally, the sign of the Cross in the heavens before the Last Judgment³ is baldly described in the Didache (xvi. 6) as σημεῖον ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ.

It is, then, intelligible that the writer of the Appendix to Jn. should regard the words ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου in v. 18 as an unmistakable prediction of martyrdom by the cross. But whatever the meaning of v. 18, the text clearly embodies a genuine reminiscence of words spoken by the Lord. If the author of the Appendix is right in his interpretation of them, “this He said, signifying by what death He should glorify God,” he must be taken as relying on memory or tradition for his report of the words used; for, if he desired to place sentences of his own making in the mouth of Jesus, which should contain a prophecy of Peter’s crucifixion, he would have phrased them with less ambiguity.

It is possible (see on 2:21 and the references there given) that the comment of v. 19 is a mistaken one. But even in that case we have a clear indication that the narrator, at the time of writing, believed that Peter was dead, and that he had died a martyr’s death by crucifixion. This became the tradition of the Church. The earliest appearance of it is in Tertullian (Scorp. 15, about 211 a.d.); and it is noteworthy that he makes reference to the words of Jn. 21:18: “Tunc Petrus ab alterocingitur, cum cruci adstringatur,” interpreting ἄλλος ζώσει σε of the binding of the martyr to the cross. Origen (ap. Eus. H.E. iii. 1, if indeed the report is Origen’s, which is doubtful) is the first to tell that Peter was crucified with his head downward, ἀνεσκολοπίσθη κατὰ κεφαλῆς, a statement which appears, embellished with legend, in the Acta Petri and in many later writers. The notices of Peter’s death are perplexing,¹ and the subject cannot be pursued here; but it is plain that the tradition of his crucifixion goes back to Jn. 21:18, 19.

With the comment τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν κτλ. should be compared 12:33, τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν. For ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν we have here δοξάσει τὸν θεόν. We should expect ἤμελλεν δοξάζειν …, but δοξάσει places the narrator back in the scene described, when the martyrdom of Peter was still in the future. It is characteristic of the style of Jn. (see on 1:45), that the writer does not stay to tell explicitly that Peter was dead, for this is a fact which the whole Church knew.

The phrase descriptive of a martyr’s death, by which he was said to “glorify God” in his sufferings, occurs again in 1 Pet. 4:16, where a man who is threatened with suffering ὡς Χριστιανός is exhorted thus: δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ. The phrase is common in the martyrologies. See on 13:31, where it is pointed out that this thought must be distinguished from the thought that in his death a martyr “is glorified” by God.

Ἀκολούθει μοι. See 1:43 for the invitation to Philip expressed thus, and the Synoptic references there given. It would seem from v. 20 that ἀκολούθει μοι here signified a literal following of Jesus as He moved away from the assembled disciples, Peter and John alone going with Him. But the words may well have recalled to Peter the invitation extended to him in early days, “Come, and I will make you a fisher of men” (Mt. 4:19, Mk. 1:17, Lk. 5:10); and he could hardly have failed to remember a recent occasion when his eager offer to follow Jesus was put aside by the Master (Jn. 13:36). See p. 529 above.

20. With ἐπιστραφεὶς ὁ Πέτρος, cf. 20:14, 16 (see also Mk 5:30). א D N Γ Δ Θ add δέ after ἐπιστρ., but om. A B C W.

Peter obeyed the summons to follow Jesus, and as they moved away from the others John went after them, not doubting that he was welcome, whenever Jesus called his close friend Peter. See Introd., p. xxxvi f.

The “disciple whom Jesus loved” (v. 7, 13:23) is more closely described by recalling his action, when, at the instigation of Peter, he asked who the traitor was. ἀνέπεσεν reproduces ἀναπεσών of 13:25 (where see note).

21. τοῦτον οὖν. The rec. om. οὖν with A WΓ Δ Θ, but ins. א B C D

Peter has been told that he will die by crucifixion, and he at once asks what is to be the fate of his friend. Latham notes in his character “a peculiar kind of curiosity, which we find in people of very active minds,”¹ and cites 13:24, where Peter is eager to ascertain at once who is the traitor in the company.

οὗτος δὲ τί; “This man, what?” To this the answer is a rebuke, such as Jesus gave more than once to people who were curious about the duty or the destiny of others (see on 14:22). Dods (in loc.) recalls a man sketched by Thomas à Kempis: “considerat, quod alii facere tenentur, et negligit, quod ipse tenetur” (Imit. Chr. ii. 1)

22. Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω κτλ. “If it is My will (θέλω is here the θέλω of masterful authority, cf. 17:24) that he should tarry (μένειν is used of survival, as at 1 Cor. 15:6) until I come, what is that to thee?”

ἕως ἔρχομαι is literally “while I am coming” (see on 9:4 for ἕως with the pres. indic. in Jn.), but it means here, as at 1 Tim. 4:13, “until I come.”

The emphasis is on ἐὰν θέλω. Jesus is not represented as saying that it is His will that the Beloved Disciple would survive; but if it was His will, that was no concern of Peter’s.

That ἕως ἔρχομαι is meant to be interpreted by the Second Coming of Christ is not doubtful (cf. 14:3). To apply it to the coming of Christ at a disciple’s death is a desperate expedient of exegesis; and thus interpreted, the saying is meaningless, for every one “tarries” until Christ comes in that sense.

σύ μοι ἀκολούθει. “As for you (σύ is very emphatic), follow me,” repeated from v. 19. This is the last precept of Jesus recorded in the last Gospel; and it is the final and essential precept of the Christian life. See on v. 19.

23. ἐξῆλθεν οὖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος κτλ. “So this saying went forth,” etc. Cf. Mk. 1:28 for a similar use of ἐξῆλθεν.

εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφούς. “The brethren” are the Christian community, who were to each other as brothers (see on 13:34 for the new commandment which enjoined this). The expression is not used thus in the Gospel narratives, where indeed it would be anachronistic, the sense of Christian brotherhood not being realised until after the Resurrection; but we have it often in the Acts (1:15, 9:30, 10:23, etc.), and it appears in Eph. 6:23, 1 Jn. 3:14, 16, 3 Jn. 3, 5.

ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει. ὅτι is recitantis, introducing the words of the reported saying. The use of ἐκεῖνος is Johannine (see on 1:8).

οὐκ εἶπεν δέ. This is read by א B C W 33, a strong combination; but the position of δέ is unusual, “perhaps without parallel in Johannine Greek” (Abbott, Diat. 2075). AD, followed by a b e f, have καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, καί being used for καίτοι, a frequent Johannine usage (see on 3:11). If the original were … Ⲁⲡⲟⲑⲛⲏⲥⲕⲉⲓⲕⲁⲓ … καί might easily have dropped out by accident, and then δέ would be added to make the sense clear.

The comment of the writer upon the saying which he has recorded is quite in the manner of Jn. (see on 2:21), as are the repetition of the saying itself (cf. 16:16–19), and the use of the word λόγος for a “saying” of Jesus (see on 2:22).

τί πρὸς σέ; is om. in this verse by א*, but is found in א^aA B C W Δ Θ.

24. The Appendix to the Gospel needed a conclusion; it could not have ended with v. 23. v. 24 identifies the Beloved Disciple, of whom vv. 22, 23 tell, with the author (in some sense) of the Gospel; an identification which has not hitherto been made explicitly; and v. 25 adds that much remains unrecorded about the works of Jesus

v. 24 (like 19:35), being an explanatory comment on what has gone before, is thoroughly Johannine (see on 2:21). Jn., i.e. the actual writer of the Gospel, explains that the narratives which he has recorded were derived from the “witness” of the Beloved Disciple. For the present participle μαρτυρῶν, the Sinai Syriac has “bare witness,” perhaps implying that the μαθητής was dead at the time when the Appendix (or at any rate the postscript) was added. But the language used and the tense of μαρτυρῶν rather suggests that he was alive; cf. “he knoweth” at 19:35.

περὶ τούτων probably refers to the whole content of the Gospel, and not merely to the episode recorded in c. 21, although it includes at any rate the latter part of this.

καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα. Prima facie, this indicates that the Beloved Disciple actually wrote the Gospel with his own hand,¹ including the Appendix, and not only that his reminiscences are behind it. But γράφειν is sometimes used when dictation only is intended. E.g. “Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross” (19:19) means that Pilate was responsible for the wording of the titulus, but hardly that he wrote himself on the wooden board. So Paul says, “I write the more boldly to you” (Rom. 15:15), while it appears from Rom. 16:22 that the scribe of the epistle was one Tertius. Cf. Gal. 6:11, and 1 Pet. 5:12. The employment of scribes was very common. Further, in Judg. 8:14 the LXX has ἔγραψεν πρὸς αὐτόν (v.l. ἀπεγράψατο), where the meaning is “he described,” i.e. “he caused to be written down,” not necessarily that the young prisoner wrote down the list of names sua manu. This is the meaning which we attach to ἔγραψεν in the present passage. The elders of the Church certified that the Beloved Disciple caused these things to be written. They were put into shape by the writer who took them down, and afterwards published them, not as his own, but as “the Gospel according to John.” See Introd., p. lxiv.

καὶ οἴδαμεν κτλ. Chrysostom (in loc.) seems to have read οἴδα μέν …, and this would give a good sense. “I know,” that is, the writer whom we call Jn. knew, that the testimony of the aged disciple was truthful; but it was not to be taken as a complete account of all that Jesus did, μέν in v. 24 being balanced by δέ in v. 25. Such an attestation, however, by a writer who conceals his name and identity, would not be so impressive as οἴδαμεν (which all the versions follow), the plural representing the concurrence of the presbyters of the Church at Ephesus where the Gospel was produced. For the early traditions to this effect, see Introd., pp. lvi, lix.

Jn. is prone to use οἴδαμεν when he wishes to express the common belief and assurance of the Christian community, e.g. 1 Jn. 3:2, 14, 5:15, 19, 20; see also on 3:11.

ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν. So B C*D W, while the rec. has ἀληθ. ἐστ. ἡ μαρτ. αὐτοῦ, with א A C³Γ Δ Θ. Cf. 3 Jn. 12, οἶδας ὅτι ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν, as well as the parallel 19:35, where see note. In the paraphrase of Nonnus this attestation clause is omitted at 21:24.

For the stress laid by Jn. on “truth” and “witness” see on 1:7, 14, and cf. Introd., p. xci.

25. This verse was omitted from his text by Tischendorf, because he had concluded that it was not in the original text of א, but had been added by a corrector. His judgment was challenged by Tregelles, and was finally shown by Gwynn to be untenable.¹ There is no documentary authority for omitting the verse; the only MS. which does not now contain it (cursive 63) has lost a page at the end, as Gwynn demonstrated in 1893.

ἔστιν δέ. These words do not appear in the Sinai Syriac, nor does Chrysostom betray knowledge of them.

Wetstein cites several passages from the Talmud couched in hyperbolical language similar to that of v. 25. A remarkable parallel occurs in Philo, de post. Caini, 43, where it is said that if God wished to display the riches of His creation, the whole earth, land, and sea would not contain them (χωρῆσαι). Cf. 1 Macc. 9:22, where, however, the figure is not so exaggerated.

ἅτινα ἐάν κτλ., “whatsoever things may be written,” etc. The constr. is irregular, but the meaning is hardly doubtful. Origen, however, interpreted the verse as meaning that the world would not be equal to the record of such great acts as those of Christ, not merely that it could not contain the books which told of them (see Abbott, Diat. 2414).

αὐτὸν οἶμαι is omitted by Syr. sin. οἴεσθαι occurs again in N.T. only at Phil. 1:17, Jas. 1:7; cf. 4 Macc. 1:33 ἐγὼ μὲν οἴμαι “such is my opinion.”

The singular οἶμαι, following the plur. οἴδαμεν of v. 24, has been thought to show that vv. 24 and 25 are separate notes from different hands. But this is not necessary to suppose. The writer associates others with himself in the attestation of v. 24, but in the editorial reflection or colophon of v. 25 he speaks only for himself.

¹ See G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, i. 80 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.

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).

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.

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).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

MS. manuscript

² Cf. Lightfoot (Bibl. Essays, p. 173), Westcott in loc., and Abbott (Diat. 2671–4).

³ Probably נַּת שְׁמָנִים = “oil press” at the foot of the Mount of Olives.

¹ Quoted by Wetstein; cf. Trench, Synonyms of N.T., p. 162, for the meaning of λαμπάς in the N.T.

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).

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.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 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).

¹ For a curious speculation as to a possible corruption of the text here, see Abbott (Diat. 1365).

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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

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).

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.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

¹ The title ἀρχιερεῖς included all ex-high priests (see Schürer, Hist. of Jewish People, Eng. Tr., II. i. p. 203).

¹ See, for careful discussions, Schmiedel in E.B. 4580 f., and Moffatt in D.C.G. ii. 750 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).

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.

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).

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.

¹ Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 101.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

² It was taken by Chrysostom and Jerome (Epist. cxxvii. 5), both of whom regard John the son of Zebedee as the Beloved Disciple.

³ Nonnus, in his paraphrase, explains the phrase by saying that it was because of John’s fishing business, ἰχθυοβόλου παρὰ τέχνης, which apparently means that the high priest bought fish from him; but this is not convincing.

¹ So Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, iii. p. 143.

² Studien und Kritiken, 1892, p. 83; cf. Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 100.

¹ The word is used in Proteuangelium 5 as if it meant the λογεῖον or oracle of the Urim and Thummim, from which it was clearly distinguished.

² Bingham (Antt. II. ix. 5) and Routh (Reliquice Sacrœ, ii. 27) give the facts. A special treatise, De lamina pontificali apostolorum Ioannis Iacobi et Marci (Tübingen, 1755), was written by J. F. Cotta—a scarce book, as to which I am indebted to Dr. Wieland, the University Library at Tübingen, for information. It does not seem to add anything to what was known before.

³ Eusebiana, pp. 10–14, 99.

⁴ The priests wore linen only (Ex. 28:42, 40:13, 14); but according to Josephus (Antt. xx. ix. 6), the Levites in the time of Agrippa obtained permission to do the same.

⁵ The Passional from which Valois derived this is not known.

⁶ See Wordsworth and White, Nou. Test. Lat., p. 171.

¹ The legend is that Mark was κολοβοδάκτυλος, which would have made him ineligible as a Jewish priest, being blemished; but the Vulgate Preface says that he mutilated his thumb after he became a Christian, precisely that he might be counted sacerdotio reprobus.

² The title ἱερεύς (sacerdos) for a Christian minister is used by Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen (see my essay on Cyprian in Early Hist. of Church and Ministry, pp. 223, 228). It might therefore have been used by Polycrates; but the context makes it improbable that he did use it thus.

³ So Routh (Rel. Sacr. ii. 28), Stanley (Apostolic Age, p. 275); and cf. Lightfoot (Galatians, p. 362).

¹ Epiphanius (Hœr. xxix. 4) applies the word ἡγιασμένος to James.

² Barnabas had been too warm a supporter of Paul to be free from suspicion in Jewish circles (Acts 9:27).

Moulton-Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, illustrated from the papyri, by J. H. Moulton and G.Milligan (1914–). This is being completed by Dr. Milligan; it is indispensable.

¹ Aphrahat finds here a fulfilment of Zech. 14:6, “There shall be cold and frost” (in the LXX and Peshitta). (Select. Dom. xvii. 10.)

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).

¹ Cf. Introd., p. xcviii.

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).

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.

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.

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.

¹ See Schürer, Hist. of Jewish People, 11. i. p. 190 f. Schürer holds, however, that on this occasion the Sanhedrim did meet in Caiaphas’ house, referring to Mt. 26:57.

¹ Human Element in the Gospels, p. 509.

² J.T.S., July 1921, p. 367.

¹ See G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 573 f.; G. T. Purves in D.B., s.v. “Prætorium”; Sanday, Sacred Sites, p. 52 f. Westcott and Swete favour Antonia.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 The language in which the conversation with Pilate was carried on was probably Greek; but it is, of course, possible that Pilate was able to speak the vernacular Aramaic sufficiently for the purposes of a judicial inquiry.

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.

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.

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.

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).

¹ Cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, Eng. Tr., pp. 309–312.

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.

¹ The phrase is reproduced by Justin of Christ: εἰς τοῦτο γεννηθεντα (Apol. i. 13).

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.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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.

¹ See E.B. 476 for these passages.

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).

¹ Cf. Introd., p. xcviii.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ Deissman, Bible Studies, Eng. Tr., 167.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ Human Element in the Gospels, p. 512; cf. contra, Moffatt, D.C.G. ii. 754.

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).

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.

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).

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).

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).

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.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Salmon, Introd. to N.T., p. 67 n.

² See Zahn, Einleitung in N.T., § 69, and Abbott, Diat. 2537.

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.

³ See Turner in J.T.S., Oct. 1924, p. 14.

¹ See Nestle in Hastings’ D.B., s.v. “Gabbatha,” for the difficulties of the etymology.

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.

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.

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.

¹ See E.B., 1773.

² See Introd., p. cvii f.

³ See D.B., Extr. v. 478.

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).

Moulton-Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, illustrated from the papyri, by J. H. Moulton and G.Milligan (1914–). This is being completed by Dr. Milligan; it is indispensable.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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.

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.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ Cf. Routh, Rel. Sacr. i. 122.

² Respons. ad Iudaeos, x.

¹ Le Blant argued that soldiers would not have been put to work of this kind, and that executions were entrusted not to the legionaries, but to civil police or apparitors attached to the court of the procurator. But his arguments are taken from the conditions of a later age. See the art. “Bourreau” in Cabrol’s Dict. d’archéologie chrétienne for a full discussion. Cf. Acts 22:24, 25: the scourging of Paul was about to be entrusted to soldiers under the command of a centurion.

² The Gospel of Peter gives it in the form οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ισραήλ.

¹ Cf. Sir C. W. Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre (1907), the fullest and best discussion of the site of Calvary.

¹ See art. “Bourreau” cited above.

² Barnabas (§ 6) quotes from this verse, ἐπὶ τὸν ἱμ. μου ἔβ. κλῆρον, of the Crucifixion in like manner.

¹ Cf. Introd., pp. 153 ff.

² Philo (de Prof. 20) says that the high priest in Leviticus represents the Divine Word, and that he is forbidden to “rend his clothes” (Lev. 21:10), because the Word is the bond of all things. But this has no bearing on the text here.

³ Ingenious computers have discovered that by applying Gematria, χίτων = 87 = Ἰησοῦς. Cyprian (de unit. 7) found in the seamless robe a symbol of the Unity of the Church.

¹ See E.B., s.v. “Clopas,” and Deissmann,Bible Studies, p. 315 n.

² As reported by Eusebius (H.E. iii. 11, iv. 22).

MSS. manuscripts

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

³ For the spelling, see Westcott-Hort, Appendix, 156.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

¹ Wetstein cites a parallel from Lucian (Toxaris, 22). The bequest of Eudamidas was, “I leave to Aretæus my mother, to cherish and support in her old age.”

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 Notes on Select Readings, p. 68.

¹ Cf. Introd., pp. cliii ff.

¹ Latham, The Risen Master, p. 216, suggests that John brought her to Bethany, and thinks that she could not have been in Jerusalem on the day of the Resurrection, or she would have been sent for when the tomb was found empty.

² Cf. Introd., p. cviii.

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.

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 Abbott (Diat. 2115) connects πάντα τετέλεσται with ἵνα τελειωθῇ ἡ γραφή.

¹ Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. iii. 434, quotes this from Sanhedr. fol. 43. 1.

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).

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.

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.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ See Field (Notes on the Trans. of the N.T., p. 106), who accepted the emendation (which was a conjecture of Camerarius) while unaware of the actual reading of the cursive 476.

¹ Diat. 1456. 2644.

² Abbott (Paradosis, passim) has much to say about παραδιδόναι is Isa. 53:12, but his treatment is very speculative and is not followed here.

¹ See von Gebhardt’s Ausgewählte Märtyreracten (Berlin, 1902), p. 17.

² Acta Petri et Pauli, § 83.

³ See C. H. Turner in Ch. Quarterly Review, July, 1912, p. 294.

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).

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.

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.

¹ Cf. Westcott-Hort, Select Readings, p. 22; Nestle, Textual Criticism, p. 227; Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, p. 524; Abbott, Diat. 1756; and esp. Tischendorf’s critical note on Mt. 27:49.

² Cf. Introd., p. xcvi.

MS. manuscript

¹ That the readings of Codd. 56, 58, and 68 are respectively ἤνυξε, ἔνυξε, and ἔνοιξε, I have determined by personal inspection. See “The Vulgate of St. John,” in Hermathena, xxi. 188.

² This is figured in Cabrol’s Dict. d’archéol. chrétienne, s.v. “Croix.”

³ See Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, p. 357; cf. also pp. 71, 97, 251.

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).

¹ Physical Cause of the Death of Christ (1847).

² See E.B. 960.

³ c. Celsum, ii. 36.

¹ Cf. Burkitt, Two Lectures on the Gospels, p. 64.

¹ See Routh, Rel. Sacr. i. 161.

² Cf. Toplady’s hymn, “Rock of Ages”:

“Let the water and the blood,

From Thy riven side which flowed,

Be of sin the double cure,

Cleanse me from its guilt and power.

³ Hor. Hebr. iii. 440.

⁴ The author of the curious treatise Pistis Sophia (circa 280 a.d.) brings into juxtaposition (c. 141) the Water of Jn. 4:14, the Blood of the New Covenant (Mk. 14:24), and the Water and Blood of Jn. 19:34, but he does not say what the connexion is.

¹ Theol. St. u. Kritiken (1902), p. 128; cf. also Philology of the Gospels, p. 227, and Blass, Euang. sec. Iohannem, p. liii.

MSS manuscripts

² Drummond, Character and Authorship, etc., p. 389 f., takes this view.

¹ E.g. in our day by Zahn (Einheit. ii. 474), Sanday (Criticism of Fourth Gospel, 78), and Abbott (Diat. 2384, 2731).

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).

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).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. clv.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ Ch. Quarterly Review, July 1912, p. 297.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

MS. manuscript

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.

² Cf. E.B. 3408, and D.B. iii. 543.

¹ See Latham, The Risen Master, p. 36 f., for a suggestive study of what was done.

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 Latham, The Risen Master, p. 37, and cf. p. 225.

² Latham supposes that the other women looked into the tomb and reported its emptiness to Mary (l.c. p. 40).

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.

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).

¹ See, e.g., Chase, Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 130 n., and Salmon, Some Criticism of the Text of N.T., p. 150.

² See Abbott, Diat., 1803.

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).

³ So the Vulgate has here “cum se inclinasset, uidet.”

⁴ Tatian makes no mention of stooping.

⁵ Cf. Abbott, Diat. 1804, and Field on Lk. 24:12.

¹ Chrysostom calls attention to this point.

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).

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.

¹ The Risen Master, pp. 417, 418.

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 I have endeavoured to draw out this distinction in Studia Sacra, p. 122 f.

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).

¹ E. C. Hoskyns finds a mystical meaning in the whole story: “The risen Lord is ὁ κηπουρός, for He is the Lord of the Garden, and once more He walks in His garden in the cool of the day, the early morning, and converses not with the fallen, but with the redeemed.” Cf. Gen. 3:8 (J.T.S., April 1920, p. 215). The idea is worthy of Origen. but is too subtle to be convincing.

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.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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.

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.

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).

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.

¹ Burkitt observes (Christian Beginnings, p. 45) that Jael said Ribboni to Sisera, according to the Aramaic Targum (Judg. 4:18).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

MS. manuscript

¹ Introd., pp. xcvi ff.

¹ Origen, twice at least (Comm. 285, 357), substitutes πορεύομαι for ἀναβαινω when quoting Jn. 20:17.

² E.B. 1770.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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.

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.

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.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ The final commission, as described in Mt. 28:16, would seem to be addressed to the Eleven only; cf. also Mt. 16:14–16.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

¹ See Report of Fulham Conference on Confession and Absolution, pp. 7:109.

¹ See Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, p. 116.

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.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ Comm. in Mt. xii. 14 (Lommatzsch, iii. 156).

¹ Cf. also Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 215–217.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

¹ In the second-century Epistle of the Apostles (c. 11), Peter and Andrew as well as Thomas are invited by Jesus to apply the test of touch, and were convinced by it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

¹ Cf. 2 Esd. 1:37, “I take to witness the grace of the people that shall come, whose little ones rejoice with gladness; and though they see me not with bodily eyes, yet in spirit they shall believe the thing that I say.”

² Cf. Latham, The Risen Master, pp. 186 ff., for the mental attitude of Thomas, as depicted by Jn.

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.

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.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

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.

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).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ Further arguments may be found in Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, p. 194), who accepts the Johannine authorship of the Appendix, as do Harnack (Chron. i. 676), Sanday (Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 81), and W. Bauer in his Handbuch; Pfleiderer (Primitive Christianity, iii. 79), Moffatt (Introd. to N.T., p. 572), and Stanton (The Gospels as Historical Documents, iii. p. 28) take the other side

¹ Primitive Christianity, iii. 79.

² See Introd., p. xcix.

MSS. manuscripts

¹ Luke the Physician (Eng. Tr.) p. 227.

¹ See Introd., p. cviii.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 On this cf. Sparrow-Simpson, The Resurrection and Modern Thought, p. 86: “Recognition, in some cases, instead of becoming easier, [became] increasingly difficult.”

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.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ See Abbott, Diat. 2701.

² Trench, with others, suggests that the “right” side is symbolic of the auspicious side; cf. Ezek. 4:4, 6, etc.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

³ Cf. Wordsworth-White in loc., and Berger, La Vulgate, p. 45, for other Latin MSS. with this interpolation.

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.

¹ Cf. G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr., p. 462 n.

¹ Abbott (Diat. 2999, xvii. n.) finds a symbolic meaning in τὸν ἐπενδύτην διεζώσατο, understanding the words to suggest that Peter girded himself with the fine linen of repentance.

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.

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.

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.

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 Enarr. in Ps. 37:17.

¹ See, e.g., Trench, Synonyms of N.T., p. 39 f.

² These references are given by J.E. Sandys in a careful study of ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν, first printed in the Journal of Philology, 1868, pp. 88–93.

¹ Note that the same Hebrew word אָהֵב is variously rendered by ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν in this verse.

¹ See J. R. Harris, Odes of Solomon (ed. 1911). p. 91.

² For the distinction between diligo and amo, cf. Cicero, ad Brutum, 1. i. I: “Clodius … ualde me diligit, uel, ut ἐμφατικώτερον dicam, ualde me amat.”

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.

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.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

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).

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).

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.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

¹ Ev. da Mepharreshe, note in loc.

¹ Cf. Trench, Miracles, p. 467, and Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, iii. 26.

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).

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.

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).

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).

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.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

¹ It is used at 1 Macc. 6:37 of binding wooden “towers” on an elephant’s back, but this does not help us here.

² Cf. also Tertullian, adv. Judœos, 10, and Cyprian, Test. ii. 21.

³ Cf. Cyr. Hier. Cat. xv. 22.

¹ See, for a severe cross-examination of the sources, Schmiedel in E.B., s.v. “Simon Peter.”

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.

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).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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.

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).

¹ The Risen Master, p. 265.

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).

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.

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.

¹ Sanday presses this too far (Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 63).

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.

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.

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.

¹ Hermathena, 1893, pp. 374 ff.

MS. manuscript

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.

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).

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).