« הקודםהמשך »
.ܐܬܬ ܫܥܬܐ ܕܝܫܬܒܚ ܒܪܗ ܕܒܪܢܫܐ
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'-A'?? 'which in it' =‘in which'; cf. Jn. 52)
, where čpxetai úpa ev ý appears in Pal. Syr. as ! la la holl. The following cases occur in Jn. of iva standing for őre : 1223 ελήλυθεν η ώρα να δοξασθή ο υιός του ανθρώπου.
. ? ? . 13' ήλθεν αυτού η ώρα να μεταβή εκ του κόσμου τούτου.
. . 16 έρχεται ώρα ένα πας και αποκτείνας υμάς δόξη λατρείας προσφέρειν τω Θεώ.*
. ! ? a ?
. 1632 έρχεται ώρα ... ένα σκορπισθήτε. . ,
. That in all these cases iva simply stands by mistranslation for őre, 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 έρχεται ώρα ότε in 421.23, 5, 16%, and ěpxetai őpa év Ÿ in 528.
.ܐܬܬ ܫܥܬܗܼ ܕܝܦܢܐ ܡܢ ܗ̇ܕܝܢ ܥܠܡܐ
ܐܬܝܐ ܫܥܬܐ ܕܟܠ ܡܢ ܕܩܛܠ ܝܬܟܘܢ ܗܿܘܐ ܣܒܝܪ ܕܩܘܪܒܢ
. Syr .ܗܘ ܡܩܪܒ ܠܐܠܗܐ
. . . ܕܬܬܒܕܪܘܢ
oti similarly a mistranslation of ?='when'. In 98 οι θεωρούντες αυτόν το πρότερον ότι προσαίτης ήν we have a very awkward őri, 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 (őre) he was a beggar', and the natural inference is that ?='when’ has been wrongly interpreted as conjunctive 'that'. Another clear instance of the same mistranslation is seen in 12°, taūta cinev ’Hoaias õti eidev TÌv dótav aŭtoll (R.V. 'because he saw his glory'), where the sense demanded is 'when (őre) he saw His glory'.t
* Freely quoted in the letter from the church at Lyons (Eusebius, HE. v. I) with the correction εν ... δόξει for ίνα ... δόξη --ελεύσεται καιρός εν ώ πας και αποκτείνας υμάς δόξει λατρείας προσφέρειν τω Θεώ.
+ It is just possible that őrı 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.
εγώ, ημείς, σύ, υμείς.
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:
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 (20%). Thus at the opening St. John the Baptist emphasizes the character of his mission-éyó—in contrast to that of Christ (184.108.40.206.31a 33.34, 3286). Our Lord lays stress upon His claims -eyó (4"-26, 530-36, 6220.127.116.11.48.51.54
812.43, 18.104.22.168.18 11", 12", 14", 15', 16*, 18), or His acts (15 9-25, 22.214.171.124, 1820bis), bringing Himself into antithesis with others-the disciples, the Jews, the world, &c. (4"), 584-45, 126.96.36.199, 8188.8.131.52 bis.38.45.5), 1010.18, 1226-47, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11.21, 1534.10.16, 17140.25); or He defines His relation to God the Father (5", 65, 8160.15.26, 1030.8, 162, 17%). Emphatic “peis is frequently antithetical to éyó, and implied or expressed antithesis often accounts for the use of ýuces and oú.
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 éyó in 130.316,
663.70, 77, 818.104.22.168.49.50.54 10'22.214.171.124, 1127-43, 12"', 137.18.26, 14*.126.96.36.199
, 1514.20.26, 161.7bis, 179.140.2, 1820bis.21.37; quees in 116, 6*2.69, 735, 865, 924-29, 19"; cú in 39, 4", 10, 14, 1834.376 ; eis in 12, 4*, 188.8.131.52.39.4.45 831.46, 919.30, 1169, 133, 1420", 158.166.
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 1998, "JX, I', with the Participle expressed by éyó in Genesis are as follows. 74 Topp $ cyà émáyu vetov, 912 in 8 khò đồoul, I5 2 17 Kpvô khó, 30 px HD Televingo éyó, 2413.13 ¥?? non idoù éyù cornka. So also 16", 18", 243.37.43, 253, 279, 28, 31, 32", 421, 48”, 49". The only cases without éyó are 37"
Cases of wx, we', with the Participle expressed by queîs in Genesis-Kings are: Gen. 1993 717 Dipon ng um sinnum ' ÖTU ától/vmev quees Tòv tómov toūrov, 438 b'xar um ... 9030 127-by Δια το αργύριον ģucis cirayóueda, Num. 10% dippa-bx ux d'yp) ’EĚalpojev ňueis eis Tòv tónov. So Deut. 1o, 52), 129, Judg. 18, 19'8, 1 Sam. 14, 1 Kgs. 22', 2 Kgs. 6', 73.9 bis, 182. No cases with omission of ημείς. .
Similarly, in Genesis--Kings there are 40 cases of one thou' with the Participle expressed by rú (e.g. Gen. 135 nmands 1787-57 ng tâgay Tùy yộv óv où épás), as against 14 without sú: and 35 cases of DMX ye' with the Participle expressed by úuels (e.g.
% yoyyvouàr öv
Tubv snow & w Suctsץץסץ Tov אֶת־תְּלֶנּתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם מַלִינִם 169
: Iי אנה
dlayoyrúčete) and one case with aŭroí (Ex. 10''), as against 6 cases without υμείς. .
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.
617.21(16.20) qına mambo amur ? Tabs 'o Beós cov, où datpeúels ενδελεχώς.
'': Dan. 28 7??, Amos 7 kalpòv úpcīs éśayopášete.
The only exception to the expression of the Pronoun is found in Dan. 23 np naviņa ating mas mas coi, è beòs Tŵv matépwv pov, εξομολογούμαι και αινω. .
As compared with Hebrew, the Personal Pronoun is used more freely in Aramaic with (e.g.) a Perfect where no special stress is apparent; cf. Dan. 46 ny?! "? Öv éyù čyvov, 516 7. nypa 78 και εγώ ήκουσα περί σου. .
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 méoos 'pôv otýkel öv
oủk ; 130 oŮTÓS COTIV ÚTèp où éyw citov, misy na DONT NIN ;'??. In other cases we may find the Aramaic Pronoun coupled without special emphasis with a Perfect or Iinperfect; e.g. 1316 all'iva Pavepun To 'Ισραήλ διά τούτο ήλθον εγώ εν ύδατι βαπτίζων, -59 ?κη: 577 ins
: ye' אנתון
;בֵּינִיכוֹן קָאֵם מַן דְּאַנְתּוּן לָא יָדְעִין butts oix otart exactly represents
gwa yay? m? mung np7 bapAgain, in 16 quees távtes édáßoper, the juces naturally reproduces the suffix of için 'all of us'.
Particularly noteworthy is the throwing of oú to the end of the sentence, whether in a question, as in 1216 'O pobúrns ei oú; 1837 Ούκούν βασιλεύς ει σύ; 19 Πόθεν ει σύ; or in a statement, as in 48 θεωρώ ότι προφήτης εί σύ, 818 Σαμαρείτης εί σύ. This is never found elsewhere throughout the N. T. except in Acts 1393, Heb. só Yiós Mov ei oú, a quotation of Ps. 21 with accurate reproduction of the Hebrew order ??. 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 ? ! ins), and Jn.'s use of both orders (cf. où ei in 142.49, 3'', 75%, &c.) looks much like a close reproduction of an Aramaic original.
αυτός, ούτος, εκείνος. To express the 3rd person aúrós is fairly frequent in Jn. The figures for aŭtós (-ń) 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 oûtos this one', ékeîvos ‘that one', and he employs these Pronouns substantivally with far greater freedom than do the Synoptists. The figures for oûtos (aŭrn) as subject are
Mt. 35, Mk. 14, Lk. 36, Jn. 44. For exeīvos (-9, -o) used substantivally, whether as subject or obliquely, the figures are
Mt. 4, Mk. 3, Lk. 4, Jn. 51. εκείνος 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 897 hú as subject is rendered aŭtós 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