iva as a mistranslation of ¶='when'. We have noticed, when speaking of the usage of, that it can bear the meaning 'when', ore. Strictly speaking in such a usage it is relatival 'which', with ellipse of 'in it'='in which'; cf. Jn. 528, where épɣerai &pa èv Syr. as ? a. The following cases ἵνα standing for ὅτε: 12” ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Pal. Syr. ? did modes? JA LL?. 'which in it' appears in Pal. occur in Jn. of 13' ἦλθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα ἵνα μεταβῇ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. Pal. Syr. » ~?oi po lea? ghia LL). 16 ἔρχεται ὥρα ἵνα πᾶς ὁ ἀποκτείνας ὑμᾶς δόξῃ λατρείαν προσφέρειν 16 ἔρχεται ὥρα . . . ἵνα σκορπισθῆτε. Pal. Syr. oh... ba boll. That in all these cases iva simply stands by mistranslation for ore, and that no mystic final sense is to be traced in the usage such as is postulated by Westcott, is proved by the use of the normal phrase ἔρχεται ὅτε épxetai opa ote in 421.23, 525, 1625, and epxeraɩ &pa èv y in 528. OTɩ similarly a mistranslation of ?='when'. In 9 οἱ θεωροῦντες αὐτὸν τὸ πρότερον ὅτι προσαίτης ἦν we have a very awkward or, and R.V.'s halting rendering, 'they that saw him aforetime, that he was a beggar', is the best that can be made of the sentence. Clearly the sense demanded is 'when (öre) he was a beggar', and the natural inference is that been wrongly interpreted as conjunctive 'that'. instance of the same mistranslation is seen in 12a, тavта eiπev Ησαίας ὅτι εἶδεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ (R. V. 'because he saw his glory), where the sense demanded is 'when (ore) he saw His glory'.t 'when' has Another clear * Freely quoted in the letter from the church at Lyons (Eusebius, HE. v. 1) with the correction ἐν ᾧ . . . δόξει for ἵνα . . . δόξῃ --ἐλεύσεται καιρὸς ἐν ᾧ πᾶς ὁ ἀποκτείνας ὑμᾶς δόξει λατρείαν προσφέρειν τῷ Θεῷ. + It is just possible that or may here be a mistranslation of relative-'These things said Isaiah who saw His glory and spake concerning Him', but the sense 'when' seems to be preferable. CHAPTER IV PRONOUNS ἐγώ, ἡμεῖς, σύ, ὑμεῖς. THE great frequency of the Pronouns of the first and second persons is a marked feature in Jn. The occurrences in this Gospel and the Synoptists are as follows: (4" 14.26 To a large extent this phenomenon finds its explanation in the fact that the Fourth Gospel is designed to prove our Lord's Messiahship and His Divinity (203). Thus at the opening St. John the Baptist emphasizes the character of his mission-èy-in contrast to that of Christ (120.23.26.27.31 33.34, 326). Our Lord lays stress upon His claims -èyó 530.36, 635.40.41.41.48.51.54, 812.42, 107.9.11.14.18 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 187), or His acts (15 9.26, 174.12.14.19, 1820bis), bringing Himself into antithesis with others-the disciples, the Jews, the world, &c. (432, 534.45, 78.29.34.36, 815.216.22.23 bis.38.45.55, IO10.18, 1226.47, 1314.15.33, 143.12.19.20.27, 155.10.16, 17146.25); or He defines His relation to God the Father (57, 657, 8166.18.26, 103. 8, 1626, 17). Emphatic μeîs is frequently antithetical to yó, and implied or expressed antithesis often accounts for the use of μeîs and σú. When all such cases have been taken into consideration, there remain, however, a large number in which the Pronoun appears to be used with no special emphasis. Thus èyú in 130.316, 32, 438, 663.70, 717, 814 14.16a.21a.29.49.50.54 29.49.50 IO17.27.28.35, II27.42, 1250, 137.18.26, 14 4.106.12b.16.28 1514.20.26, 164.7bis, 179.14.22, 1820bis.21.37; μeîs in 116, 6+2.69, 75, 88, 924.29 19; σú in 326, 410, 1024, 149, 1834.37b; vues in 126, 45, 53 20.33.34.35.39.44.45 831.46, 919.30, 1149, 1313, 140, 153.166 35 Now while in Semitic the use of the Personal Pronouns with greater or less emphasis is extremely common, we also find them employed without special emphasis in order to mark the subject of the Participle. In Hebrew, and still more in Aramaic, the Participle is used with great freedom to describe an event as in process of continuance, whether in the past or present, or as in process of coming into being (Futurum instans). In such cases, the subject being unexpressed in the verbal form, it is of course necessary to mark it, when it is pronominal, by the Pronoun. This Semitic usage of the Participle being foreign to Greek, the LXX in translating the Hebrew of the O.T. naturally represents it by a Present, a Perfect, a Future, &c., and, so doing, might well have dispensed with the Personal Pronoun. As a matter of fact, however, the translation nearly always retains the Pronoun, and that, almost invariably, in the position which it occupies in the original, before or after the verbal form. Cases of N,N, 'I', with the Participle expressed by ¿yú in Genesis are as follows. τι που ο ἐγὼ ἐπάγω υετόν, 9 από τα ἐγὼ δίδωμι, 151 25 17 κρινῶ ἐγώ, 30' ' της τελευτήσω ἐγώ, , 2413.43 idoù èyà σтηка. So also 16, 18, 243.37.42, 2532, 27, 280, 315, 3212, 4218, 4821, 4929. The only cases without eyw are 3716.30 Cases of N, 'we', with the Participle expressed by μeîs in drt כִּי מַשְׁחִיתִים אֲנַחְנוּ אֶת־הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה 1913 .Genesis Kings are: Gen ἀπόλλυμεν ἡμεῖς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον, 438 ΕΝΟΣ ΑΠΩΝ... 28 29 Διὰ τὸ ἀργύριον . . . ἡμεῖς εἰσαγόμεθα, Num. row Dippnk ΠΟΝ DVD οἱ ἡμεῖς. Similarly, in Genesis-Kings there are 40 cases of thou' with the Participle expressed by oú (e.g. Gen. 135 Tâσav Thν yŵv îv σù ópậs), as against 14 without σú: and 35 cases of D'ye' with the Participle expressed by vμes (e.g. τὸν γογγυσμὸν ὑμῶν ὃν ὑμεῖς Siayoryugere) and one case with avroí (Ex. 10"), as against 6 cases without ὑμεῖς. In Theodotion's version of the Aramaic portion of Daniel and the LXX of the Aramaic sections of Ezra we find the following cases of the Personal Pronoun with the Participle expressed in Greek. Dan. 2 1977 mg την καιρὸν ὑμεῖς ἐξαγοράζετε. The only exception to the expression of the Pronoun is found in ἐξομολογοῦμαι καὶ αἰνῶ. As compared with Hebrew, the Personal Pronoun is used more freely in Aramaic with (e.g.) a Perfect where no special stress Now it is at any rate a plausible hypothesis that the unemphatic usage of the Personal Pronoun in Jn. may often represent close translation of an Aramaic original in which the Pronoun was expressed with the Participle. Thus e.g., 126 μéσos vμŵv otýkel öv cases we may find the Aramaic Pronoun coupled without special emphasis with a Perfect or Imperfect; e.g. 13 åλλ' iva paveрwon Tậ Ἰσραὴλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων, 19 Particularly noteworthy is the throwing of σú to the end of the sentence, whether in a question, as in 12 ‘O πpoþýτys el σú; 1837 Οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; 19 Πόθεν εἶ σύ; or in a statement, as in 4" θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εί σύ, 815 Σαμαρείτης εἰ σύ. This is never found elsewhere throughout the N. T. except in Acts 1333, Heb. 15 Yiós pov ei σú, a quotation of Ps. 27 with accurate reproduction of the Hebrew and Aramaic can, in such a statement or query, place the Pronoun after the predicate or before it (as e.g. in Gen. 2724), and Jn.'s use of both orders (cf. σù el in 142.49, 310, 752, &c.) looks much like a close reproduction of an Aramaic original. .בְּנִי אַתָּה Hebrew order αὐτός, οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος. To express the 3rd person autós is fairly frequent in Jn. The figures for aúrós (-) as subject in the four Gospels are as follows: Mt. 12, Mk. 17, Lk. 51, Jn. 18. Much more often, however, Jn. prefers to use an emphatic demonstrative ouтos 'this one', èkeîvos ‘that one', and he employs these Pronouns substantivally with far greater freedom than do the Synoptists. The figures for oûtos (avrŋ) as subject are Mt. 35, Mk. 14, Lk. 36, Jn. 44. For ekeivos (-n, -o) used substantivally, whether as subject or obliquely, the figures are Mt. 4, Mk. 3, Lk. 4, Jn. 51. ἐκεῖνος is used adjectivally Mt. 51, Mk. 16, Lk. 29, Jn. 18. Jn.'s extraordinary fondness for demonstratives in preference to the Personal Pronoun finds adequate explanation in the heory that his Gospel is a close reproduction of an Aramaic original. In the Aramaic of Dan. the 3rd Personal Pronoun No hủ as subject is rendered autós by Theodotion, except where it forms the subject of a predicative statement in which the copula is understood, in which case the Greek represents it by the substantive |