28 examples occurring in the six Aramaic chapters, while there are only 2 cases of ‘Then answered (5', 614), and none at all of 'And answered'. In contrast, the whole Hebrew O.T. offers only 2 such unconnected openings, 'Answered' (Song 2", rendered 'spake' in R.V.; Ps. 1185), while there are 145 cases of 'And answered (so-and-so),, ", 19", &c.

Theodotion's version of Dan. does not always represent this Aramaic Answered'; but where it does, it regularly renders ἀπεκρίθη, ἀπεκρίθησαν (11 times; once ἀποκριθείς), preserving the asyndeton in 4 cases (27.10, 4), but elsewhere prefixing καί. These 12 passages, in all of which the Aramaic phrase is regularly followed by 'and said', before statement of the words spoken, are as follows :

In the Fourth Gospel ἀπεκρίθη or ἀπεκρίθησαν occurs as asyndeton openings 65 times (see below), ἀποκρίνεται once, I3. On the other hand, we have ἀπεκρίθη οὖν, 7, 9, 12; ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν, 21, 7, 9; ὃς δὲ ἀπεκρίθη, 5; ἀπεκρίνατο οὖν, 5; ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίνατο, 5'; ἀποκρίνεται οὖν, 13; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀποκρίνεται, 12”; i.e. 11 cases of this verb as an opening with connective particle, as against 66 cases without. Elsewhere in the whole Ν.Τ. ἀπεκρίθη as an asyndeton opening occurs only in Mk. 129. In the Synoptists the common phrase is ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς (ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπεν, which rather resembles the common Hebrew phrase "N" ν ‘And he answered and said, of which it is frequently the rendering in LXX.

Of the 65 cases of asyndeton opening ἀπεκρίθη, ἀπεκρίθησαν in

Jn., 38 introduce the words spoken without further verb, viz. 149, 35, 57.11, 67.68.70, 720.46, 819.33.34.49.54, 93.11.27, 1025.32.33.34, 119, 138.36, 1631, 185.8.20.23.34.35.36.37, 1971.15.22, 215, we once have ἀπεκρίθη . . . λέγων, 1; while in the 26 other cases the opening is åжEкρíon (åжEкρíonσav).. kaì einev (eiπav), viz. 148.50, 219, 33.9.10.27, 410.13.17, 626.29.43, 721.52, 814.39.49, καὶ εἶπεν 930.34.36, 1230, 137, 143, 180, 208. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that åïekpíðŋ kaì einev is a literal rendering of the Aram.

and åπekρíðŋσav kaì eiñav of i'! iy, for which, as we have seen, they stand in Theodotion's Daniel.

Asyndeton λéyai, déyovσiv = asyndeton

21.25.26.34.49.50

Similarly, we constantly find that Jn. uses Aéya as an opening without connective particle. The cases are 139.46.48, 25.7, 3, 47.11.15.16.17.19. 5o, 5o, 6, 750, 89, 92, 1123.24.27.39 bis.40.44, 136.8.9.10.36.37, 145.6.8.9.22, 185.17.26.38 196.15, 2013. 5.16.17.29, 213.10.12.15 bis 16 ter.17 bis.2; a total of 63. Aéyovou without connective particle occurs in 118.34, 1629, 213; ἐκείνη déɣei, 201; äddo eλeyov in 102, 1229. On the other hand, we have the opening kaì λéye in 218, 1911; kaì déyovσw in 2013; kaì ëdeyev in 6, 823; kaì čλeyov in 612; Xéyeɩ oʊv in 4o, 76, 13, 18", 1910, 215.7; λéyovou ovv in 917; eλeyev ovv in 831; λeyov ovv in 433, 51o, 819.25, 910.16, 1136, 1618, 19o1, 2025; λéyeɩ dé in 121; ëλeyev dé in 671; ëλeyov dé in 1020; eira λéyeɩ in 197, 2027; i.e. a total of 31 openings with connective particle, as against 70 without such particle.

In Mt. Aéye as an asyndeton opening occurs 16 times, viz. 161⁄2, 1725, 1822, 198.18.20, 207.21.23, 2131.42, 2243, 2625.35.64, 2722; λéyovσiv 10 times, viz. 928, 197.10, 207.22.33, 21341, 2242, 272. In Mk. Aéye thus λέγει never; déyovow in 819.* In Lk. Aéye in 167, 1922; Aéyovou never. In Acts there are no occurrences of λέγει, λέγουσιν as asyndeton openings.

That the historical present in Jn., of which λéya is the most frequent example, represents the similar usage of the participle in Aramaic, is argued later on (p. 88). There are no instances. of the asyndeton opening (participle) in Dan., because the

* The absence of this asyndeton usage in Mk. is a point against the view that this Gospel is a literal translation of an Aramaic document. There are very many cases where Mk. uses kaì λéyei, & dè λéyeɩ as openings, where Jn. would certainly have used asyndeton Aéya. Cf. e. g., for the difference in style, the dialogue of Mk. 1214-17.

writer of this book prefers the formula 'Answered and said' which we have already noticed. This latter phrase, however, so much favoured in Dan., seems to have been practically confined to Western Aramaic, being unused in Syriac, except in translation, as in the Peshîțtā of the O.T.* Ordinarily in Aramaic, especially in its Eastern branch, the asyndeton opening, (participle)

is one of the most characteristic features of the language in description of a dialogue; and this naturally lends itself in Greek to a rendering by the asyndeton historical present Aéye. For example, the Syriac Acta Thomae in the first four pages (ed. Wright) offers twelve examples of the usage. The following is a literal rendering of a dialogue-passage from this work (p. o):

'And when they had embarked and sat down, Habban the merchant says to Judas, "What is the craft that thou art able to practise?" Judas says to him, 'Carpentry and architecturethe work of a carpenter". Habban the merchant says to him, "What art thou skilled to make in wood, and what in hewn stone?" Judas says to him, "In wood I have learned to make ploughs and yokes and ox-goads, and oars for ferry-boats and masts for ships; and in stone, tombstones and shrines and temples and palaces for kings". Habban the merchant says to him, "I was seeking just such a workman".'

With this we may compare the structure of the dialogue in Jn. 2115-17:

'So when they had broken their fast, Jesus says to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" He says to Him, "Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee". He says to him, "Feed My lambs". He says to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" He says to Him, "Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee". He says to him, "Tend My sheep". He says to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Lovest thou Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee". Jesus says to him, "Feed My sheep".

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

This very striking resemblance in structure between the two passages—both as regards pictorial) = λéyeɩ and asyndeton usage is no mere chance and isolated phenomenon. Dialogues so framed are frequent in the Fourth Gospel (cf. especially the references to Aéya in chs. 4, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20), and innumerable parallels from Aramaic might be collected.*

Parataxis.

Peculiarly Semitic is the simplicity of construction employed throughout the Fourth Gospel. Sentences are regularly co-ordinated, and linked by κaí. Subordinate sentences are few and far between. In 622-24, where the writer embarks exceptionally upon a somewhat complex sentence, he speedily becomes involved in difficulty. 1311 is more successful as Greek; but this passage, in point of style, practically stands alone.+ Such simplicity of construction can of course to some extent be paralleled from the Synoptic sources, particularly from Mk. But not even in Mk. does it attain anything like the vogue which it has in Jn.

1-4

Comparative rarity of Aorist Participle describing action
anterior to finite verb.

In speaking above of Jn.'s phrase åñekpíðŋ kaì einev, we noticed that the Synoptic equivalent subordinates the prior action by use of the Aorist Participle, e.g. ô dè åπokpißeìs eitev, i.e. the natural Greek construction. Though we occasionally find this latter construction in Jn.—e. g. 136 κaì èμßλépas... λéye-it is far less common than in the Synoptists. An approximate count yields the following figures, the proportions of which are worked out according to the pages of WH.

* The asyndeton construction is also frequent in Rabbinic Hebrew (under the influence of Aramaic), though here in description of past events the Perfect is normally used. Several examples are cited by Schlatter (Sprache, pp. 25 f.). Cf. e. g. Midrash Rabba on Exodus, par. v. 18 (Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh), 'He said to them, Who are ye? They said to him, We are the messengers of the Holy One, blessed be He. What are ye seeking? They said to him, Thus saith the Lord, &c.'

We may note that v.2 contains two out of the only seventeen occurrences of the Genitive absolute which are found in Jn.

Prof. Moulton (NTG.3 i, p. 12), in speaking of 'co-ordination of clauses with the simple κaí, in place of the use of participles or subordinate clauses', remarks that 'in itself the phenomenon proves nothing more than would a string of "ands" in an English rustic's story-elementary culture, and not the hampering presence of a foreign idiom that is being perpetually translated into its most literal equivalent'. This may be so 'in itself'; here, however, we have to ask why, if avoidance of the participial construction in favour of co-ordination is natural to Kowý Greek, we find this striking disproportion between Jn. and the Synoptists which the figures reveal. The answer has been supplied elsewhere by Dr. Moulton himself. 'The over-use of locutions which can be defended as good Kowý Greek' is a test of 'Greek which is virtually or actually translated'.*

Comparative rarity of Genitive absolute.

As compared with the Synoptists, the use of the Genitive absolute in Jn. is infrequent. The approximate figures are, Mt. 48, Mk. 36, Lk. 59, Jn. 17; i.e. the Synoptists exhibit but slight variation in their use of the construction, and use it about 21 times as often as Jn. While the Synoptists use the construction, almost without exception, in temporal clauses, Jn. 'employs it with more elasticity of meaning than is found in the Triple Tradition. A causal meaning ("as" or "because") is implied, probably or certainly, in 23, 513, 618. "Though" is certainly implied in 127, 211, and perhaps in 2019' (Abbott, JG. 2028–31).

The rarity of the Genitive absolute in Jn. is due partly to the use of parataxis: e.g. I” καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν Τί οὖν; σὺ Ἠλείας εἶ; καὶ λέγει Οὐκ εἰμί. I* καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ, . . λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Φίλιππος.

* Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 474. The quotation has already been given in full on p. 7.