תמונות בעמוד




As a preliminary to the classified discussion of particular usages, it is instructive to take the Prologue of the Gospel and examine it verse by verse. Thus we may gain at the outset a clearer conception of the texture of the writer's language as a whole; and, when we come to classify, may realize that we are not dealing merely with isolated phenomena, but with illustrations of a continuous characteristic which admits of but one explanation—the theory of an Aramaic original.

v.1.2. The phrase mpos Tòv Deóv in the sense 'with God' is remarkable, as Westcott observes. He cites the parallel usage in Mt. 1356, Mk. 69, 9", 14", Lk. 9", 1 Jn. 1o. The last of these passages is an echo of the Gospel-prologue, presumably by the same author-ήτις ήν προς τον πατέρα. With regard to the Synoptic instances we notice (1) that they are all from the Marcan source, and (2) that Mt. 171, Lk. 2253 alter Mark's após ýmâs to the more natural uedo inwv, while Mt. 26 omits the phrase altogether. The parallel passages are as follows: Mk. 63 και ουκ εισίν αι αδελφαί αυτού ώδε προς ημάς; Mt. 1356 και αι αδελφαί αυτού ουχί πάσαι προς ημάς εισίν ; Mk. 919 έως πότε προς υμάς έσομαι; Mt. 177 έως πότε μεθ' υμών έσομαι; Lk. 9" &WS TÓTe čo ouai apòs úpās; Mk. I419 καθ' ημέραν ήμην προς υμάς εν τω ιερώ διδάσκων. Mt. 2615 καθ' ημέραν εν τώ ιερώ έκαθεζόμην διδάσκων. Lk. 2253 καθ' ημέραν όντος μου μεθ' υμών εν τω ιερώ. Clearly, then, we are dealing with a phrase confined in the Gospels to the Marcan source and to Jn. which was so far strange


to the other Synoptists that they were moved on occasions to alter or expunge it. The view that it may represent an Aramaic phrase is at once suggested by the fact that it occurs three times in Mk., for which on other grounds an Aramaic original, or at any rate Aramaic influence, has been postulated. In Aramaic the common preposition ms (possibly akin to the verb join') denotes (1) connexion with, apud, napá, (2) motion towards, ad, mpós. It may be suggested that feeling for the second meaning so commonly borne by ms has moved the translator of an Aramaic original to represent the preposition by após even when used in the former sense.*

The usage of após ='with' is frequent in St. Paul; cf. 1 Thess. 3*, 2 Thess. 2, 3, 1 Cor. 166.7, 2 Cor. 59, 11°, Gal. 18, 2, 4 Phil. 12, Philem." There are, however, many other indications that this Apostle's language is tinged with Aramaic influence.

υ. 4. και γέγονεν εν αυτώ ζωή ήν. This reading has the consensus of early attestation, the punctuation which connects ô yéyover with the preceding sentence seeming to be little if at all earlier than Cent. IV' (WH.). Yet, as is well known, considerable difficulty has arisen in connexion with the interpretation, ‘That which hath been made in Him was life'. The Aramaic equivalent would be (819) ID A'I 777. Here the opening ?, answering to that which ', might equally well bear the meaning ‘inasmuch as, since, because'; cf. the use of "? in Dan. 241 nniin? And inasmuch as thou sawest'; 220 man m?enpan ? because wisdom and might belongeth unto Him'. The Heb. relative aux often bears the same

sense. Adopting this interpretation, we obtain the meaning, ‘Because in Him was life’; and this admirably suits the connexion-He was the source of all creation because He Himself was Life.

υ. 5. και το φως εν τη σκοτία φαίνει, και η σκοτία αυτό ου κατέλαβεν. The difficulty of katémaßev is familiar. Dr. Ball, in his article

* It was only after finishing this chapter that the writer noticed that the facts that após here Aram. mys, and that the other Gospel-occurrences emanate from the Marcan source with its Aram. background, had been anticipated by Dr. Rendel Harris in the first of a series of articles on. The origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel' in the Expositor, xii (1916), pp. 156 f. The coincidence in conclusion serves to prove that it is unmistakable for an Aramaic scholar.

;airo oi karda3ew is slight לא קבליה obscured it not and לא אקבליה

mentioned in the Introduction, has made the brilliant suggestion that confusion may have arisen in Aramaic between the Aph'el form Saps 'aķbēl darken’ and the Pa'el form Sap kabbēl from an outwardly identical root, meaning 'receive, take'. It may be further noted that in Syriac the latter root actually occurs in the Aph'el in the sense receive'-cf. Lk. 1527 in Sin. and Pesh. outaro pade up because he hath received him whole' (cf. other instances cited by Payne Smith, 3470). The difference between

s ’ x 5 katéłaßev ; and if the construction was the common one of the participle with the substantive verb, mm: 8? Suape x was not obscuring it', there would, in an unvocalized text, be no distinction between soape 'obscuring' and Sapp receiving'. The sense darken' is equally suitable to Jn. 1236 iva uv okoría ýmâs kataláßn, 7 0972 71275rap that darkness shroud you not’.

υ. 6. εγένετο άνθρωπος ... όνομα αυτά Ιωάννης, i. e. . . . *772 877 iznis map. Whose name was’ is only elsewhere so expressed in Ν.Τ. in ch. 3' άνθρωπος εκ των Φαρισαίων Νικόδημος όνομα αυτό, Αpoc. 68 ίππος χλωρός και ο καθήμενος επάνω αυτού, όνομα αυτό και θάνατος, Αpoc. 91 τον άγγελος της αβύσσου όνομα αυτά Εβραϊστι 'Αβαδδών.

Elsewhere in N.T. the ordinary expression is óvóuatı (classical); cf. Matt. 2782, Mk. 5), Lk. 1, 5, 103, 16", 235, 24's, Acts 51.54, 89, 910., 10', 112, 1213, 16":14, 173, 182.7.24, 1924, 20", 21", 27', 28" (30 occurrences). Other expressions are: óvómatı kadoóuevos, Lk. 19" ; kai tò õvoua aŭrñs, Lk. 1'; • (n) övoua, Lk. 126.27, 23, 8", 24", Acts 13o ; óvoua, Mk. 1462.

Pal. Syr. renders the Gospel-occurrences of óvóuatı by owena ‘his name ', onena? 'who his name' (i.e. ‘whose name '), Omenao and his name'. Pesh. renders óvóuatı by one! (!) 'who his (her) name ', loos omdla! 'who his name was', and once (Acts 164) log on the 'her name was '. óvópati kaloúpevos, Lk. 19' = Pal. Syr. Ax Outena? 'who his name was called', Pesh. Joo Owen? 'who his name was'. kai ovoua aŭrns, Lk. I' = Pal. Syr. interno 'and her name ', Pesh. Joos onsen her name was'. ovoja, Lk. 127 = Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. Ondea! 'who his name'; Lk. 225 = Pal. Syr. omtra log? 'who was his name' (i.e. 'whose name was '), Pesh. Joos onlla ‘his name was '; Lk. 84 =

[ocr errors]

who his' די שמה בלטשאצר 5.16

Daniel , who his name דניאל אשר נקרא שמו בלטאשצר (10


Pal. Syr. Os bra?, Pesh. Ontba? 'who his name’; Acts 136 = Pesh. Joo olha! 'who his name was’. i ovoua, Lk. 125, 24'3 = Pal. Syr. (128 caret) önen!, Pesh. oma! 'which its name'. où õvoua, Mk. 1432 = Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. boissos Ver that which was called'. óvoma atrợ, Jn. I( = Pal. Syr. Omena? 'who his name ', Pesh. Olea his name'; Jn. 3: Pal. Syr. Onlara ‘his name', Pesh. Joo anda 'his name was '; Rev. 68 = Pesh. od lien 'name to it'; Rev. 9" = ou laa! 'which, name to it'.

In the Aramaic parts of the O.T. we find, Ezr. 5' nyavub 13:09 now and they were given to Sheshbazzar his name' (i.e. 'to one whose name was S.'); Dan. 226, 45

' name Belteshazzar'.

The Hebrew modes of expressing 'whose name was N.' are two, viz. (1) 'and his name N.', Gen. 24%, 38"-2, Judg. 13, 17, Ru. 2', 1 Sam. I', 9., 17", 21°, 22a, 2 Sam. 46, 92.12, 139, 16%, 17%, 20', i Chr. 234, Est. 2", Jer. 3713 (22 occurrences), or (2) ‘N. his name', 1 Sam. 174.23, 2 Sam. 20%, 1 Kgs. 13°, 2 Chr. 28°, Job i', Zech. 62 (7 occurrences). Besides these two phrases, we once find (. ) , was called Belteshazzar'. In all these cases the rendering of Targg. exactly corresponds with the Hebrew, except that in Targ. of Est. 2we find apne '9770 Tube 'and his name was called Mordecai' for 'and his name Mordecai' of Heb. The rendering of Pesh. exactly corresponds with Heb. except in Ru. 2', 1 Sam. 93, 2 Sam. 9', where we find 'who his name' for 'and his name’; in 1 Sam. 13', where the phrase is omitted; and in Zech. 6"}, where, in place of Branch his name', we have and his name Sunrise'. In LXX Heb. 1920 and his name' is rendered kai ővoma atrợ, except in Gen. 24, 381.2, where we have ” (ū) ovoua. Heb. Du ‘his name' is represented by ovopa avrø except in Job r', where we have o ovoja.

Outside O.T. we find that whose name was is rendered in Syriac, "his name', his name was', 'who his name', 'who his name was '. Cf. in Wright's Apocryphal Acts, lovi put / ‘,

. ); ? Now a certain man, Onesiphorus his name was' (p. glo); WOONCOM awla! lelo lias'a bath-keeper, who his name

[ocr errors]

,one of the chief men of Antioch' ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝ. ܫܡܗ ܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܘܣ ܚܕ ܕܝܢ ܓܒܪܐ ܐܢܣܝܦܪܘܣ ܫܡܗ ܗܘܐ ;(ܩܡܛ

.his name Alexander


Secundus ' (p. e); elles log onlar b: 900 is a procurator's son, who his name was Menelaus' (p. 6).

Thus it appears that όνομα αυτά Ιωάννης, Νικόδημος όνομα αυτό exactly represent a Semitic construction common to Aramaic and Hebrew, and that the Greek represents the regular rendering of the Hebrew phrase. It is also noteworthy that the only other occurrences of ovoua avro are found in Apoc., which is strongly Semitic in colouring.

v.i. iva távtes Toteúowow di aŭroll probably = *52 na upa'?, which is most naturally taken to mean, that all might believe in it' (the light) rather than ‘through him’ (John). Cf., for the sense postulated, 1236 ως το φως έχετε, πιστεύετε εις το φως, ίνα υιοί φωτός γένησθε, and 1216 εγώ φως εις τον κόσμον ελήλυθα, ίνα πας και πιστεύων εις εμέ έν τη σκοτία μη μείνη. .

υ. 8. ουκ ήν εκείνος το φως. The emphatic pronoun εκείνος-s0 characteristic of the Fourth Gospel-has its counterpart in the Aram. 8907, Syriac os that one', or in the Personal Pronoun 83. See below (p. 82).

αλλ' ίνα μαρτυρήση περί του φωτός. The difficulty of the supposed ellipse (usually supplied by the words, he came') is familiar.

, xping by 770?? (cf. Pal. Syr. ou la mo? N? Jioon oos Joa N ljoon!). It is probable that 7 is here wrongly rendered iva, and should have its relative force—(one) who'. The sense then is, That one was not the light, but one who was to bear witness of the light'. Cf., for such a use of 7 or without expressed antecedent ('one who',' he who'), Ezr. 725, jaytina vr, *3 *?? and him who knoweth not ye shall teach'; Dan. 223 RŞ'Y??? ?DYTI1y?? :72? 'and now Thou hast made known to me that which we asked of Thee'. Cf. the similar use of mox in Hebrew in Gen. 449.10

: whom it is found of thy servants shall die ... He with whom it is found shall be my slave', where the rendering of Targ. Onk. is m'd'y nama??. Other instances of 7 relative mistranslated by iva are given below (pp. 75 f.).*

הֲדָא הוּא נְהוֹרָא אִילָהֵן ,The whole verse would run in Aramaic לא

[ocr errors]

He with אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא אִתּוֹ מֵעֲבָדֶיךְ וָמֵת ... אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא אִתּוֹ יִהְיֶה־לִי עָבֶד

* In favour of the ordinary view that the construction implies an ellipse stand two other passages cited by Westcott-98 Ούτε ούτος ήμαρτεν ούτε οι γονείς αυτού, αλλ' ίνα φανερωθή τα έργα του Θεού εν αυτώ, where before ίνα we have to supply

« הקודםהמשך »