Chapter 97

1Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321.↑2This “secret information” is very welcome to Dr. Paulus, because it gives a useful hint “as to many occurrences in the life of Jesus, the causes of which are not obvious” (L. J. 1, b, s. 141); that is Paulus, like Bahrdt and Venturini, though less openly, is fond of using such secret and influential allies asdeus ex machinâ, for the explanation of much that is miraculous in the life of Jesus (the transfiguration, residence after the resurrection, etc.).↑3Orig. c. Cels. i. 62.↑4Let the reader bear in mind the kindred names Nicolaus and Nicolaitans.↑5Prob., p. 44. Bretschneider is right, however, in declaring against Kuinöl’s method of supplying a connexion between the discourses in John, by the insertion of propositions and intermediate discourses, supposed to have been omitted. Lücke judiciously admits (1, p. 446) that if, in John, something appears to be wanting between two consecutive expressions of Jesus, we are yet to suppose that there was an immediate connexion between them in the mind of the Evangelist, and it is this connexion which it is the task of exegesis to ascertain. In truth the discourses in the fourth gospel are never entirely wanting in connexion (apart from the exceptions to be noticed in § 81), though that connexion is sometimes very latent.↑6Bereschith R., sect 39 f. xxxviii. 2. Bammidbar R., s. 11 f. ccxi. 2. Tanchuma f. v. 2, in Schöttgen, i. s. 704. Something similar is said of Moses, from Schemoth R., ib.↑7Jevamoth f. lxii. 1, xcii. 1, in Lightfoot, p. 984.↑8E.g. Knapp, comm. in colloq. Christi cum Nicod. in loc.↑9Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 183. L. J. 1, a, s. 176.↑10Lücke andTholuck, in loc.↑11III. 11:ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε.13:καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβὰς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.I. 18:θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς, ὁ ὣν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.11: —καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.12Sup. § 46.↑13This is informed in the Probabilia, p. 46.↑14Ut sup. p. 476.↑15Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup.↑16De Wette adduces as examples of a similar procedure on the part of Jesus in the synoptical gospels,Matt. xix. 21,xx. 22 f. But these two cases are of a totally different kind from the one under consideration in John. We have here to treat of a want of comprehension,[370]in the face of which it is surprising that Jesus instead of descending to its level, chooses to elevate himself to a still less attainable altitude. In the passages quoted from the synoptists, on the other hand, we have examples of an excessive self-valuation, too high an estimate of their ability to promote the cause of Jesus, on the part of the rich young man and of the sons of Zebedee, and Jesus with perfect propriety checks their egotistic ardour by the abrupt presentation of a higher demand. These instances could only be parallel with that of Nicodemus, if the latter had piqued himself on his enlightenment, and Jesus, by a sudden flight into a higher region, had sought to convince him of his ignorance.↑17Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 96.↑18III. 19:αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς.III. 16:ὅυτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν, μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχη ζωὴν αἰώνιον.I. 9:ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν, τὸ φωτίζον πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.5:καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῆ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.1 John iv. 9:ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ.19Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.↑20Tholuck(Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 335) adduces as examples of a similar unobserved fusion of a discourse quoted from a foreign source, with the writer’s own matter,Gal. ii. 14 ff.Euseb., H. E. iii. 1, 39. Hieron. Comm. in Jes. 53. But such instances in an epistle, a commentary or an historical work interspersed with reasoning and criticism are not parallel with those in an historical narrative of the nature of our fourth gospel. In works of the former kind, the reader expects the author to reason, and hence, when the discourse of another party has been introduced, he is prepared at the slightest pause to see the author again take up the argument. It is quite different with a work like our fourth gospel. The introduction, it is true, is put forth as the author’s own reasoning, and it is there quite natural that after a brief quotation from the discourse of another,v. 15, he should, atv. 16, resume the character of speaker without any express intimation. But when once he has entered on his narrative, which is strictly a recital of what has been done, and what has been said, all that he annexes without any mark of distinction (as e.g.xii. 37) to a discourse explicitly ascribed to another, must be considered as a continuation of that discourse.↑21Philo. Opp. ed. Mang. i. 44. apud Gfrörer, i. p. 122.↑22Joh. v. 20:ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ, ἃ αὑτὸς ποιεῖ.24:ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων—μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.32:καὶ οἶδα, ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία, ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ.34:ἑγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω.36:ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου.37:καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ, αὐτὸς μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ ἐμοῦ.Ib.:ὄυτε τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκηκόατε πώποτε, οὕτε τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε.38:καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν.40:καὶ οὐ θέλετε ἐλθείν πρός με, ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε.42:ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.44:πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεύειν, δόξαν παρὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ του μόνου θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε·John iii. 35(the Baptist):ὁ γὰρ πατηρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.1 Joh. iii. 14:ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν, ὅτι μεταβεβηκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.Joh. xix. 35:καὶ ἀληθινή ἑστιν αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία, κἀκεῖνος οἶδεν, ὃτι ἀληθῆ λέγει. Comp.xxi. 24.1 Joh. 3,12.1 Joh. v. 9:εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, μείζων ἐστίν· ὅτι αὔτη ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.Joh. i. 18:θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. Comp.1 Joh. iv. 12.1 Joh. i. 10:καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν.1 Joh. v. 12:ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει.1 Joh. ii. 15:οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ.Joh. xi. 43:ἡγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον, ἤπερ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ.23Vid. the passages compared by Gfrörer, 1, s. 194, from Philo,de linguarum confusione.↑24Sup. § 14.↑25De profugis, Opp. Mang., i. s. 566, Gfrörer, 1, s. 202. What is farther said of theλόγος:ἀφ’ οὒ πᾶσαι παιδεῖαι καὶ σοφίαι ῥέουσιν ἀένναοιmay be compared withJohn iv. 14,vi. 35,vii. 38.↑26See Lücke’s History of the interpretation of this passage in his Comm. 2, Appendix B, p. 727 ff.↑27Hase, L. J. § 99.↑28Comp. Bretschneider, Probab., pp. 56, 88 ff.↑29In relation to this chapter, I entirely approve the following remark in the Probabilia (p. 56):videretur—Jesus ipse studuisse, ut verbis illuderet Judæis, nec ab iis intelligeretur, sed reprobaretur. Ita vero nec egit, nec agere potuit, neque si ita docuisset, tanta effecisset, quanta illum effecisse historia testatur.Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 3, s. 6.↑30E.g. byTholuckand Lücke. The latter, however, allows that it is rather an incipient than a complete parable. Olshausen also remarks, that the discourses of the Shepherd and the Vine are rather comparisons than parables; and Neander shows himself willing to distinguish the parable presented by the synoptists as a species, under the genus similitude, to which theπαροιμίαιof John belong.↑31x. 27:τὰπρόβατατὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούει,κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά·28:καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσί μοι.x. 3:καὶ τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούει.14:καὶ γινώσκω τυ ἐμα4:καὶ τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ.Alsoκἀγω ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖςcorresponds toἐγὼ ἠλθον, ἳνα ζωὴν ἔχωσι,v. 10, andκαὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μουis the counterpart of what is saidv. 12of the hireling who allows the sheep to be scattered.↑32Comp.v. 44withvii. 17;v. 46withviii. 12;v. 47withiii. 17;v. 48withiii. 18,v. 45;v. 49withviii. 28;v. 50withvi. 40,vii. 17,viii. 28.↑33L. J., b, s. 142.↑34Lücke,Tholuck, Paulus, in loc.↑35Cyril, Erasmus.Tholuck’sexpedient, which Olshausen approves, is to giveἐμαρτύρησενthe signification of the pluperfect, and to understandγὰρas an explicative. But I do not see how this can be of any avail, forγὰρandοὖν(v. 45) would still form a relation of agreement between two propositions, which one would have expected to be opposed to each other byμὲνandδὲ.↑36Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 251, 56.↑37This idea is so entirely in the spirit of the ancient harmonists, that I can scarcely believe Lücke to be the first to whom it had occurred (Comm. 1, s. 545 f.).↑38Vid. sup. § 39.↑39Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 158.↑40Lücke, 2, s. 478.↑41Tholuck, in loc.↑42Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 175; Lücke,Tholuck, Olshausen, in loc.; Hug, Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 209.↑43Wegscheider, Einl. in das Evang. Joh., s. 271;Tholuck,Comm. s. 37 f.↑44Thus Eckermann, theol. Beiträge, 5, 2, s. 228; (Vogel) der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger vor dem jüngsten Gericht, 1, s. 28 ff.; Wegscheider, s. 281; Bretschneider, Probabil., 33, 45, apud Wegscheider, ut sup. s. 281; Bretschneider, Probab., p. 33, 45.↑45De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., § 105;Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh., s. 38 f.; Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 344 ff.; Lücke, 1, s. 198 f.↑46Commentar, 4, s. 275 f.↑47Verosimilia de origine evangelii Joannis, opusc. p. 1 ff., Einleit. in das N. T., s. 1302 ff. This opinion is approved by Wegscheider, ut sup. p. 270 ff. and also Hug, 2. 263 f., andTholuck, Comm. p. 38, think the supposition of early notes not to be altogether rejected.↑48Lücke, 1, s. 192 f.↑49Henke, programm. quo illustratur Johannes apostolus nonnullorum Jesu apophthegmatum et ipse interpres.↑50Bretschneider, Probab., p. 14 f.↑51Ut sup. p. 199.↑52Wegscheider, p. 286; Lücke, p. 195 f.↑53Wegscheider, p. 285; Lücke, ut sup.↑54Lücke, s. 124 f. 175. Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matthäi, in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 109.↑55S. 39.↑56S. 197. “But lastly, why should we fear to adduce,” etc.↑57The aid promised to the disciples when brought before rulers and tribunals,Matt. x. 19 f., is quite distinct from a bringing to remembrance of the discourses of Jesus (John xiv. 26).↑58Bretschneider, Probab., p. 2, 3, 31 ff.↑59De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., § 103; Hase, L. J., § 7.↑60Lücke, ut sup. pp. 336, 337. Kern, ut sup.↑61Tholuck, ut sup.↑62Bretschneider, ut sup.↑63De Wette, ut sup. § 105.↑64Comp. Schulze, der schriftst. Charakter und Werth des Johannes. 1803.↑65Stronck—de doctrinâ et dictione Johannis apostoli, ad Jesu magistri doctrinam dictionemque exacte composita. 1797.↑66Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, p. 200.↑67Ut. sup. p. 199.↑68In his review of the 2nd Ed. of Lücke’s Commentar., in the Litt. Blatt der allgem. Kirchenzeitung 1834, no. 18.↑69This peculiarity of the discourses in John cannot be better described than by Erasmus in his Epist. ad Ferdinandum, prefatory to his Paraphrase:habet Johannes suum quoddam dicendi genus, ita sermonem velut ansulis ex sese cohærentibus contexens, nonnunquam ex contrariis, nonnunquam ex similibus, nonnunquam ex iisdem, subinde repetitis,——ut orationis quodque membrum semper excipiat prius, sic ut prioris finis sit initium sequentis, etc.↑

1Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321.↑

2This “secret information” is very welcome to Dr. Paulus, because it gives a useful hint “as to many occurrences in the life of Jesus, the causes of which are not obvious” (L. J. 1, b, s. 141); that is Paulus, like Bahrdt and Venturini, though less openly, is fond of using such secret and influential allies asdeus ex machinâ, for the explanation of much that is miraculous in the life of Jesus (the transfiguration, residence after the resurrection, etc.).↑

3Orig. c. Cels. i. 62.↑

4Let the reader bear in mind the kindred names Nicolaus and Nicolaitans.↑

5Prob., p. 44. Bretschneider is right, however, in declaring against Kuinöl’s method of supplying a connexion between the discourses in John, by the insertion of propositions and intermediate discourses, supposed to have been omitted. Lücke judiciously admits (1, p. 446) that if, in John, something appears to be wanting between two consecutive expressions of Jesus, we are yet to suppose that there was an immediate connexion between them in the mind of the Evangelist, and it is this connexion which it is the task of exegesis to ascertain. In truth the discourses in the fourth gospel are never entirely wanting in connexion (apart from the exceptions to be noticed in § 81), though that connexion is sometimes very latent.↑

6Bereschith R., sect 39 f. xxxviii. 2. Bammidbar R., s. 11 f. ccxi. 2. Tanchuma f. v. 2, in Schöttgen, i. s. 704. Something similar is said of Moses, from Schemoth R., ib.↑

7Jevamoth f. lxii. 1, xcii. 1, in Lightfoot, p. 984.↑

8E.g. Knapp, comm. in colloq. Christi cum Nicod. in loc.↑

9Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 183. L. J. 1, a, s. 176.↑

10Lücke andTholuck, in loc.↑

11III. 11:ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε.13:καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβὰς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.I. 18:θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς, ὁ ὣν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.11: —καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.

III. 11:ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε.13:καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβὰς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.I. 18:θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς, ὁ ὣν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.11: —καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.

11: —καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.

12Sup. § 46.↑

13This is informed in the Probabilia, p. 46.↑

14Ut sup. p. 476.↑

15Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup.↑

16De Wette adduces as examples of a similar procedure on the part of Jesus in the synoptical gospels,Matt. xix. 21,xx. 22 f. But these two cases are of a totally different kind from the one under consideration in John. We have here to treat of a want of comprehension,[370]in the face of which it is surprising that Jesus instead of descending to its level, chooses to elevate himself to a still less attainable altitude. In the passages quoted from the synoptists, on the other hand, we have examples of an excessive self-valuation, too high an estimate of their ability to promote the cause of Jesus, on the part of the rich young man and of the sons of Zebedee, and Jesus with perfect propriety checks their egotistic ardour by the abrupt presentation of a higher demand. These instances could only be parallel with that of Nicodemus, if the latter had piqued himself on his enlightenment, and Jesus, by a sudden flight into a higher region, had sought to convince him of his ignorance.↑

17Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 96.↑

18III. 19:αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς.III. 16:ὅυτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν, μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχη ζωὴν αἰώνιον.I. 9:ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν, τὸ φωτίζον πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.5:καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῆ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.1 John iv. 9:ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ.

III. 19:αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς.III. 16:ὅυτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν, μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχη ζωὴν αἰώνιον.I. 9:ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν, τὸ φωτίζον πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.5:καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῆ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.1 John iv. 9:ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ.

III. 16:ὅυτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν, μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχη ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

1 John iv. 9:ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ.

19Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.↑

20Tholuck(Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 335) adduces as examples of a similar unobserved fusion of a discourse quoted from a foreign source, with the writer’s own matter,Gal. ii. 14 ff.Euseb., H. E. iii. 1, 39. Hieron. Comm. in Jes. 53. But such instances in an epistle, a commentary or an historical work interspersed with reasoning and criticism are not parallel with those in an historical narrative of the nature of our fourth gospel. In works of the former kind, the reader expects the author to reason, and hence, when the discourse of another party has been introduced, he is prepared at the slightest pause to see the author again take up the argument. It is quite different with a work like our fourth gospel. The introduction, it is true, is put forth as the author’s own reasoning, and it is there quite natural that after a brief quotation from the discourse of another,v. 15, he should, atv. 16, resume the character of speaker without any express intimation. But when once he has entered on his narrative, which is strictly a recital of what has been done, and what has been said, all that he annexes without any mark of distinction (as e.g.xii. 37) to a discourse explicitly ascribed to another, must be considered as a continuation of that discourse.↑

21Philo. Opp. ed. Mang. i. 44. apud Gfrörer, i. p. 122.↑

22Joh. v. 20:ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ, ἃ αὑτὸς ποιεῖ.24:ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων—μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.32:καὶ οἶδα, ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία, ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ.34:ἑγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω.36:ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου.37:καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ, αὐτὸς μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ ἐμοῦ.Ib.:ὄυτε τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκηκόατε πώποτε, οὕτε τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε.38:καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν.40:καὶ οὐ θέλετε ἐλθείν πρός με, ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε.42:ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.44:πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεύειν, δόξαν παρὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ του μόνου θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε·John iii. 35(the Baptist):ὁ γὰρ πατηρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.1 Joh. iii. 14:ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν, ὅτι μεταβεβηκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.Joh. xix. 35:καὶ ἀληθινή ἑστιν αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία, κἀκεῖνος οἶδεν, ὃτι ἀληθῆ λέγει. Comp.xxi. 24.1 Joh. 3,12.1 Joh. v. 9:εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, μείζων ἐστίν· ὅτι αὔτη ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.Joh. i. 18:θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. Comp.1 Joh. iv. 12.1 Joh. i. 10:καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν.1 Joh. v. 12:ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει.1 Joh. ii. 15:οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ.Joh. xi. 43:ἡγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον, ἤπερ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

Joh. v. 20:ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ, ἃ αὑτὸς ποιεῖ.24:ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων—μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.32:καὶ οἶδα, ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία, ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ.34:ἑγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω.36:ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου.37:καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ, αὐτὸς μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ ἐμοῦ.Ib.:ὄυτε τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκηκόατε πώποτε, οὕτε τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε.38:καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν.40:καὶ οὐ θέλετε ἐλθείν πρός με, ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε.42:ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.44:πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεύειν, δόξαν παρὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ του μόνου θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε·John iii. 35(the Baptist):ὁ γὰρ πατηρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.1 Joh. iii. 14:ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν, ὅτι μεταβεβηκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.Joh. xix. 35:καὶ ἀληθινή ἑστιν αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία, κἀκεῖνος οἶδεν, ὃτι ἀληθῆ λέγει. Comp.xxi. 24.1 Joh. 3,12.1 Joh. v. 9:εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, μείζων ἐστίν· ὅτι αὔτη ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.Joh. i. 18:θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. Comp.1 Joh. iv. 12.1 Joh. i. 10:καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν.1 Joh. v. 12:ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει.1 Joh. ii. 15:οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ.Joh. xi. 43:ἡγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον, ἤπερ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

24:ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων—μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.

32:καὶ οἶδα, ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία, ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ.

34:ἑγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω.

36:ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου.

37:καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ, αὐτὸς μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ ἐμοῦ.

Ib.:ὄυτε τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκηκόατε πώποτε, οὕτε τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε.

38:καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν.

40:καὶ οὐ θέλετε ἐλθείν πρός με, ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε.

42:ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.

44:πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεύειν, δόξαν παρὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ του μόνου θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε·

1 Joh. iii. 14:ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν, ὅτι μεταβεβηκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.

Joh. xix. 35:καὶ ἀληθινή ἑστιν αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία, κἀκεῖνος οἶδεν, ὃτι ἀληθῆ λέγει. Comp.xxi. 24.1 Joh. 3,12.

1 Joh. v. 9:εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, μείζων ἐστίν· ὅτι αὔτη ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Joh. i. 18:θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. Comp.1 Joh. iv. 12.

1 Joh. i. 10:καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν.

1 Joh. v. 12:ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει.

1 Joh. ii. 15:οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ.

Joh. xi. 43:ἡγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον, ἤπερ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

23Vid. the passages compared by Gfrörer, 1, s. 194, from Philo,de linguarum confusione.↑

24Sup. § 14.↑

25De profugis, Opp. Mang., i. s. 566, Gfrörer, 1, s. 202. What is farther said of theλόγος:ἀφ’ οὒ πᾶσαι παιδεῖαι καὶ σοφίαι ῥέουσιν ἀένναοιmay be compared withJohn iv. 14,vi. 35,vii. 38.↑

26See Lücke’s History of the interpretation of this passage in his Comm. 2, Appendix B, p. 727 ff.↑

27Hase, L. J. § 99.↑

28Comp. Bretschneider, Probab., pp. 56, 88 ff.↑

29In relation to this chapter, I entirely approve the following remark in the Probabilia (p. 56):videretur—Jesus ipse studuisse, ut verbis illuderet Judæis, nec ab iis intelligeretur, sed reprobaretur. Ita vero nec egit, nec agere potuit, neque si ita docuisset, tanta effecisset, quanta illum effecisse historia testatur.Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 3, s. 6.↑

30E.g. byTholuckand Lücke. The latter, however, allows that it is rather an incipient than a complete parable. Olshausen also remarks, that the discourses of the Shepherd and the Vine are rather comparisons than parables; and Neander shows himself willing to distinguish the parable presented by the synoptists as a species, under the genus similitude, to which theπαροιμίαιof John belong.↑

31x. 27:τὰπρόβατατὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούει,κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά·28:καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσί μοι.x. 3:καὶ τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούει.14:καὶ γινώσκω τυ ἐμα4:καὶ τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ.Alsoκἀγω ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖςcorresponds toἐγὼ ἠλθον, ἳνα ζωὴν ἔχωσι,v. 10, andκαὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μουis the counterpart of what is saidv. 12of the hireling who allows the sheep to be scattered.↑

x. 27:τὰπρόβατατὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούει,κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά·28:καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσί μοι.x. 3:καὶ τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούει.14:καὶ γινώσκω τυ ἐμα4:καὶ τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ.

κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά·

28:καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσί μοι.

14:καὶ γινώσκω τυ ἐμα

4:καὶ τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ.

Alsoκἀγω ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖςcorresponds toἐγὼ ἠλθον, ἳνα ζωὴν ἔχωσι,v. 10, andκαὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μουis the counterpart of what is saidv. 12of the hireling who allows the sheep to be scattered.↑

32Comp.v. 44withvii. 17;v. 46withviii. 12;v. 47withiii. 17;v. 48withiii. 18,v. 45;v. 49withviii. 28;v. 50withvi. 40,vii. 17,viii. 28.↑

33L. J., b, s. 142.↑

34Lücke,Tholuck, Paulus, in loc.↑

35Cyril, Erasmus.Tholuck’sexpedient, which Olshausen approves, is to giveἐμαρτύρησενthe signification of the pluperfect, and to understandγὰρas an explicative. But I do not see how this can be of any avail, forγὰρandοὖν(v. 45) would still form a relation of agreement between two propositions, which one would have expected to be opposed to each other byμὲνandδὲ.↑

36Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 251, 56.↑

37This idea is so entirely in the spirit of the ancient harmonists, that I can scarcely believe Lücke to be the first to whom it had occurred (Comm. 1, s. 545 f.).↑

38Vid. sup. § 39.↑

39Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 158.↑

40Lücke, 2, s. 478.↑

41Tholuck, in loc.↑

42Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 175; Lücke,Tholuck, Olshausen, in loc.; Hug, Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 209.↑

43Wegscheider, Einl. in das Evang. Joh., s. 271;Tholuck,Comm. s. 37 f.↑

44Thus Eckermann, theol. Beiträge, 5, 2, s. 228; (Vogel) der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger vor dem jüngsten Gericht, 1, s. 28 ff.; Wegscheider, s. 281; Bretschneider, Probabil., 33, 45, apud Wegscheider, ut sup. s. 281; Bretschneider, Probab., p. 33, 45.↑

45De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., § 105;Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh., s. 38 f.; Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 344 ff.; Lücke, 1, s. 198 f.↑

46Commentar, 4, s. 275 f.↑

47Verosimilia de origine evangelii Joannis, opusc. p. 1 ff., Einleit. in das N. T., s. 1302 ff. This opinion is approved by Wegscheider, ut sup. p. 270 ff. and also Hug, 2. 263 f., andTholuck, Comm. p. 38, think the supposition of early notes not to be altogether rejected.↑

48Lücke, 1, s. 192 f.↑

49Henke, programm. quo illustratur Johannes apostolus nonnullorum Jesu apophthegmatum et ipse interpres.↑

50Bretschneider, Probab., p. 14 f.↑

51Ut sup. p. 199.↑

52Wegscheider, p. 286; Lücke, p. 195 f.↑

53Wegscheider, p. 285; Lücke, ut sup.↑

54Lücke, s. 124 f. 175. Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matthäi, in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 109.↑

55S. 39.↑

56S. 197. “But lastly, why should we fear to adduce,” etc.↑

57The aid promised to the disciples when brought before rulers and tribunals,Matt. x. 19 f., is quite distinct from a bringing to remembrance of the discourses of Jesus (John xiv. 26).↑

58Bretschneider, Probab., p. 2, 3, 31 ff.↑

59De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., § 103; Hase, L. J., § 7.↑

60Lücke, ut sup. pp. 336, 337. Kern, ut sup.↑

61Tholuck, ut sup.↑

62Bretschneider, ut sup.↑

63De Wette, ut sup. § 105.↑

64Comp. Schulze, der schriftst. Charakter und Werth des Johannes. 1803.↑

65Stronck—de doctrinâ et dictione Johannis apostoli, ad Jesu magistri doctrinam dictionemque exacte composita. 1797.↑

66Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, p. 200.↑

67Ut. sup. p. 199.↑

68In his review of the 2nd Ed. of Lücke’s Commentar., in the Litt. Blatt der allgem. Kirchenzeitung 1834, no. 18.↑

69This peculiarity of the discourses in John cannot be better described than by Erasmus in his Epist. ad Ferdinandum, prefatory to his Paraphrase:habet Johannes suum quoddam dicendi genus, ita sermonem velut ansulis ex sese cohærentibus contexens, nonnunquam ex contrariis, nonnunquam ex similibus, nonnunquam ex iisdem, subinde repetitis,——ut orationis quodque membrum semper excipiat prius, sic ut prioris finis sit initium sequentis, etc.↑

Back to Index Next