rao! τι Soc
ἮΝ τένων
sa νι ean ie ἢν
Ἢ = soo c me Snir.
ort
tna? =
tm
if
᾿
if >,
ἐπ ταν αν goe Ἧ
Ubi iti?
J
aes ty Sa
sito Ν eee Fae,
er
mittee A oe
1 ΠΣ IR AGAR, ΤἿΘΣ 1 1 11 1s, Massachusetts Bible Society
Catalog No. A.823:3,/Alm. 18. 57 Family ΤΥ: FOUROPEAN.. i. Sub-Family ΤῈ πολ Ci eerie Branch.Wwe st ΡΝ τ σον Group δον Νδοςα ΒΕ... Language ENGLISH
Locality . Ϊ
Contents Sonn ἫΝ Version. American Bille. . Union .
Translator
Published byA merican Bible Un 1op Place soaks : Ne we. Yo cle.
Date-........- ΕΠ Θ ee Accession No. ...176.... Accession Date June 29,13 I... Dice OS ae ee
THE
po ΡΟ Se Be ee ἢ ale:
Cronslated from the Greek,
ON THE BASIS OF THE
COMMON ENGLISH VERSION.
NEW YORK: AMERICAN BIBLE UNION. LOUISVILLE: BIBLE REVISION ASSOCIATION. CINCINNATI: AMERICAN CHRISTIAN BIBLE SOCIETY, LONDON: TRUBNER & CO., NO. 12 PATERNOSTER ROW 1859,
ADVERTISEMENT.
TuIs is an incipient or primary revision, and is issued by the American Bible Union, and sent to scholars and others, in order to call forth criticisms and suggestions, which may aid the Final Committee in their work. It is proper to observe that, since the book was prepared for the press, and the InrropucTion written, the revision and notes have passed through the hands of another
reviser, and a number of changes has been made.
The Board requests that the greatest freedom will be exercised in proposing corrections and improvements. If any person will return a corrected copy to the Rooms of the American Bible Union, 350 Broome St., New York, he will be entitled to a new copy and the cordial thanks of the
Union.
WM. H. WYCKOFF,
Corresponding Secretary.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1859, by THE AMERICAN BIBLE UNION, In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Tuomas Houtman, PrintER anD STEREOTYPER, New YorK.
[hark 6 DG T Oe.
Tue Revision of ‘The Gospel, by John,” has been made, as nearly as was practicable, in accordance with the following rules :
“GENERAL RULES FOR THE DIRECTION OF TRANSLATORS AND REVISERS EMPLOYED BY THE AMERICAN BIBLE UNION
“1, The exact meaning of the inspired text, as that text expressed it to those who understood the original scriptures at the time they were first written, must be translated by corresponding words and phrases, so far as they can be found, in the vernacular tongue of those for whom the version is designed, with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness.
“9, Wherever there is a version in common use, it shall be made the basis of revision, and all unnecessary interference with the established phraseology shall be avoided; and only such alterations shall be made, as the exact meaning of the inspired text and the existing state of the language may require.
“3. Translations or revisions of the New Testament shall be made from the received Greek text, critically edited, with known errors corrected.
“SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE REVISERS OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT.
“J, The common English version must be the basis of the revision: the Greek text, Bagster & Sons’ octavo edition of 1851.
“2. Whenever an alteration from that version is made on any authority additional to that of the reyviser, such authority must be cited in the manuscript, either on the same page or in an appendix.
“3. Every Greek word or phrase, in the translation of which the phraseology of the common version is changed, must be carefully examined in every other place in which it occurs in the New Testament, and the views of the reviser be given as to its proper translation in each place.
“4, As soon as the revision of any one book of the New Testament is finished, it shall be sent to the Secretary of the Bible Union, or such other person as shall be designated by the Committee on Versions, in order that copies may be taken and furnished to the revisers of the other books, to be returned with their suggestions to the reviser or revisers of that book. After being re-revised with the aid of these suggestions, a carefully prepared copy shall be forwarded to the Secretary.”
Before proceeding to speak more particularly of the Revision now offered to the reader, it may
not be improper to present a few remarks upon the style of this Evangelist, especially as regards its philological peculiarities.
STYLE OF THE GOSPEL, BY JOHN.
The style of this Evangelist is evidently peculiar; though I can not admit that its peculiarities are exactly what they have sometimes been represented to be. As to its features, in a philological point of view, the most striking that I have discovered, are the following:
1. Exceeding minuteness of description —(See ch. 20:1, N. b.)\—This is easily accounted for, if it be admitted, that John wrote his Gospel long after the publication of the other three, (called
iv INTRODUCTION.
Synoptical,) by Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and that his principal design was to supply facts, both entire narrations and minute particulars, which had been omitted by them. Or, if we adopt the view, that John wrote without any reference to the other Gospels, we may consider this peculiarity as a personal trait of this Evangelist.
2. The use of a very small vocabulary.—No other Book of the N.T., of equal size, is made up of so few words. It is also worthy of remark, in this connection, that compound words, especially verbs compounded with prepositions, are used very sparingly by John. This peculiarity gives to his style an air of the most charming simplicity—a simplicity which may have been either studied, or natural.
3. An evident effort to make every thing plain to the reader—Hence, the meaning of a term is so frequently explained in a parenthesis, as in ch. 1 : 38, 41, 42. 4: 25. 9 : 7, &c. Perhaps the lateness of the period at which this Gospel was published, and the fact that many names and phrases, formerly well known, were then passing into desuetude, may have given occasion to this peculiarity. Or, John may have written for those readers, more particularly, who did not understand Hebrew or Syriac.
4. A very frequent use of the connective, ov. True, the researches of critics have left little room to doubt, that many of these connectives have been intruded by transcribers at a later period, and, accordingly, the rejection of many of them has been recommended; still, this remains as a striking peculiarity of this writer’s style. On the other hand, the simple connective, de, is not so often used by John as by most other N. T. writers.
5. An uncommon use of tenses.—As, for instance, the very frequent use of the historical present, and of the compound forms of the imperfect, and perfect. (See ch. 1 : 28. 3: 25, 28, &c.) Yet I can see no evidence that John ever uses, (as some have alleged.) one tense instead of another. On the contrary, the careful reader will see, that, in every case of apparent departure from the common idiom, the tense adopted was the most appropriate that could have been selected.
6. The occasional use of words in a peculiar sense-—As, for example, 6 Aoyos, in ch. 1, which is undoubtedly to be taken in a sense different from what is common, either in sacred or profane writers. But, as I have not recommended any change in the translation of this word, I will not enlarge upon its meaning. I have no doubt but that the English term, Word, bears a meaning precisely equivalent to that of the Aoyos of John’s first chapter, and not more unusual.
There are, doubtless, other peculiarities; but as they are not properly within the province of the Reviser, they need not be mentioned in this connection. We come now to the Revision itself.
I.—THE REVISED VERSION, AND THE PRINCIPLES ADOPTED IN THE REVISION.
The Revised Version has been, of course, the Reviser’s most difficult work. Two distinct objects have been constantly before his mind—First, To make the Version as faithful as possible to the Original Greek. Second, To make the style as good as strict fidelity would permit. Of the emendations proposed, some occur but seldom—others on almost every page, and some, even in almost every verse. For the purpose of avoiding the too frequent repetition of notes, or references to notes, I have thought proper to lay down some general rules, which have been adopted throughout, and which may give the reader, at the outset, an idea of the changes he will constantly meet.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHANGES MORE FREQUENTLY MADE.
1. In most cases, I deem it unnecessary to offer any apology for omitting the supplied words of the Common Version. If these supplies are not necessary, to convey the true sense of the Original, or to make good English, they are a useless appendage to the Word of God. If they make the Version speak a meaning that is not in the Original, they are positively hurtful. I have,
INTRODUCTION. Vv SS ee 5 τ 9... See therefore, adopted the following rule—Never to omit any word of the Original, nor to insert any word, or phrase, to which there is nothing corresponding in the Original, unless such supply, or omission, be required by the idiom of our language, or may be evidently necessary to convey, clearly and fully, the undoubted sense of the passage. I extend this rule even to the article. The indefinite English article, a, or an, to which there is seldom any corresponding Greek, I have sometimes omitted, where it is found in the E. V., because it seemed to be an unnecessary, or hurtful supply.
2. Instead of using the Italic character, to indicate what supplies I find it necessary to introduce, I enclose all such words in brackets, for the following reasons—(1) Because the Italic character is not ordinarily used for such a purpose. The Bible is, perhaps, the only book in which supplies are so indicated. In all other English, and in most foreign books, brackets are used for this purpose. (2) Because the Italic character zs used, in all other English books, for another purpose, namely, to indicate a peculiar emphasis on certain parts of a passage. This is its popular use, and is so nearly universal among us, that it seems to be peculiarly appropriate. The and a, or an, and the personal pronouns, are not properly supplies, if they are inserted merely to satisfy the requirements of our idiom.
3. I distinguish two kinds of emphasis—literal and rhetorical. The latter, referred to in Obs. 2, falls properly within the province of the interpreter, and need not be further noticed at present. The former, which is inherent in the words of the passage, is, in an original work, sufliciently indicated to the eye of the intelligent reader in the words themselves. But this is not true of a translation from the Greek. There are many Greek words that contain, in themselves, an emphasis, or relative strength of meaning, which is lost in the translation, from the fact that the English words properly employed in translating them possess no corresponding inherent relative strength. The truth of this remark will at once be obvious to the Greek scholar. With the view of removing this difficulty, at least in part, I have adopted the black letter, and small capitals, to indicate to the eye of the English reader this literal emphasis, leaving the Italic character for its more appropriate use. Thus I print—
IN BLACK LETTER—1. J, when it translates eyo. 2. The personal pronouns of the third person, when they translate exewos, (that,) in any of its cases. 3. The possessives, which translate exos, vos, ὅς, jueregos, ὕμετερος, &e., When not rendered emphatic by the word, own.
IN SMALL capiTaLs—1l. The personal pronouns of the nominative case, (except J,) when they translate the nominative of the corresponding Greek pronouns. In like manner, when they translate the Greek accusative before the infinitive.
2. The words used to translate the emphatic oblique forms of these pro- NOUNS, ἐμοῦ, Euor, EME, and (when not enclitic) σου, σοι, σε, ov, οἱ, ὃ, &e.
3. The personal pronouns of the third person, when they translate οὗτος, (this,) in any of its cases.
It is not pretended that the above plan is perfect. It is presented rather as an experiment, in the hope that something more nearly perfect may grow out of it.
4. Some of the Greek tenses are treated, in the Common Version, without any apparent regard to their peculiar force and signification. I have endeavored, throughout, to remedy this defect, as far as practicable, and I hope it will appear that I have, in a great measure, succeeded, at
vi INTRODUCTION.
least in principal, or independent clauses. The following model will best explain the principle on which the Revision has been conducted, in this respect. Present. πιστευω, I believe, or, I am believing. Imperfect. επιστευον, I was believing, I kept believing, I continued believing, or, (if the English idiom will not admit of either of these,) I believed, like the English imperfect. Future. πιστευσω, I shall, or will believe. Aorist. ἐπίστευσα, I believed, or I did believe, like the English imperfect, as a general rule. Sometimes, however, (rarely in John,) where the context requires it, I believe, (indefinite present,) and, very rarely, I have believed. Perfect. σπεπίστευκα, 1 have believed, or, I have been believing.) Pluperfect. επεπιστευκειν, I had believed, or, I had been believing.
PARTICIPLES.
Present. πιστεύων, believing, or, while believing. This participle is also used for the imperfect. Future. πιστευσων, about to believe.
Aorist. πιστευσας, believing, on believing, after believing, or, occasionally where euphony may
δ᾽ require it, having believed.
Perfect. πεπιστευκως, having believed, or, in some cases, where the idiom requires it, simply,
believing. This participle is also used for the pluperfect.
I prefer to translate the participles literally, when the English idiom will at all admit of so doing. Accordingly, I have often used the participial, instead of the substituted relative clause, because, in such cases, I consider the former more effective and concise than the latter, and equally elegant. In dependent clauses, I have endeavored to carry out the above principles, as far as the comparative poverty of our language will admit. I have also endeavored to correct the frequent inaccuracies of the Common Version in regard to the tense of dependent verbs. In that Version, for example, the past is often dependent upon the present, or perfect, which is, at least, contrary to the present usages of our language. Certain obsolete uses of the subjunctive mood have also been corrected in this Revision.
5. I have frequently changed the Order of words from the Common Version, for one of two general reasons: First, to make the translation agree in this respect with the Original, in cases where I thought that the English idiom would easily admit such agreement. Second, to make the translation conform to the present prevailing usages of the English language. Thus, in ch. 1: 19, I write “sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites,” instead of ‘sent pyiests and Levites from Jerusalem,” because the former, which is in exact accordance with the Original in respect to collocation, is not only quite as good English as the latter, but is, at the same time, more clear and forcible. On the other hand, in ch. 4 : 29, 39, I write “that I ever did,” instead of “that ever I did,” because the present usages of our language require this change. I am not sure, but that the rules in respect to change of collocation might have been carried even further with advantage.
6. The following miscellaneous changes, the reasons for most of which will be at once obvious
1 A very rare exception to this occurs in ch. 6:25, where the perfect yeyovas, follows wove. In this case, the English idiom will not admit of a literal translation. Hence, I haye rendered it aoristically. The German and French translators, with few exceptions, encountering no such idiomatic difficulty, render literally.
2 The aorist participle usually describes an action as immediately following another, so as to be almost con- temporaneous with it; while the present participle describes the act as continuous, and contemporaneous with another. (See ch. 18 : 1, N. a.)
INTRODUCTION. vii
to the reader, are made so frequently in the body of the Revision, that I have thought best to introduce them to notice in this general manner, in order to avoid the necessity of constantly referring to them in the notes.
Who, for which, referring to persons. That is sometimes substituted for who, or which, and
vice versa. In this I am guided solely by what I understand to be the laws of euphony
Those, for them, in the expressions, them that, or them which.
Will, for shall, in a great many cases, to satisfy the requirements of modern usage.
Any one, for a man, or any man, in the translation of τες.
No one, for no man, in the translation of ovdes.
Because of this, or on account of this, for therefore, in the translation of δια τουτο.
Whoever, whatever, for whosoever, whatsoever. Whomever is, however, hardly admissible.
What, for that which, as more concise.
Every one who, or that, for whosoever, in the translation of zas 6.
To, for unto, in all cases. See Webster’s Dictionary, art. Unio.
Till, for until. See Webster’s Dictionary, art. Unizl.
Into which, in which, to which, by which, of which, on which, for whereinto, wherein, whereto,
whereby, whereof, whereon, (or whereupon).
In this, for herein.
Of it, (or its,) by it, in it, on it, (or upon it,) for thereof, thereby, therein, thereon, (or thereupon).
But, and, or now, according to the connection, for δὲ, where this particle is left untranslated
in the E. V.
But, for and, sometimes, in the translation of de.
And, for then, sometimes, in the translation of δε.
And, for but, in the translation of και.
During, for at, in several cases, in the translation of εν. See ch. 2 : 23, N. q-
Nor, for neither, in many cases where the latter is contrary to modern usage.
Therefore, for then, as the translation of ov, which I would usually so render, even where
it is left untranslated in the E. V.—For reason, see ch. 1 : 22, N. x.
7. I have not been able fully to make up my mind, as to whether the changes enumerated below are in accordance with the Rules to which this Revision is subject, or not. I have concluded, however, to propose them in the Paragraph Edition, at the end of the Volume. I hope those into whose hands this work may be put for criticism, will freely express their views in relation to the propriety of these changes. They are proposed, because they are considered important.
My, thy, for mine, thine, followed by a noun, as, my hour, for mine hour, &e.
You, for ye, in all cases.
-s, (or-es,) for -th, (or -eth,) in the termination of verbs in the third person singular of the
present indicative, as, has, for hath, &c.
The adoption of the above changes in the Paragraph Edition rendered necessary a few other slight modifications, chiefly in collocation, in order to meet the requirements of euphony, as, “What are you seeking?” for “What seek ye?”—Ch. 1 : 38.
THIS REVISION NOT FINAL.
Those who may feel inclined to censure the Writer of the following pages for having made too many alterations, will, it is hoped, bear in mind, that this Revision is by no means final, and, though no changes, either in the Text, or in the Version, have been recommended, except what
vill INTRODUCTION.
are confidently believed to be improvements, all more or less important, yet any suggestions that may be made by those into whose hands this work may fall, with a view to its further improvement, shall be thankfully received, and candidly considered.
ASSISTANCE RECEIVED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK.
The Author is glad to acknowledge his indebtedness to those gentlemen with whom he has been more immediately associated in revision labors, during the prosecution of this work, for their many valuable and kind suggestions, of which he has availed himself in repeated instances. Valuable aid has also been derived from the Manuscript Revisions of several eminent British Scholars, who have been employed in the work of revision by the A.-B. Union. The regulations by which the revision enterprise is conducted, however, do not allow me at present to mention the names of any of the gentlemen referred to above.
II—THE NOTES.
In regard to the notes, I will simply remark, that it has been my aim to make them as short and concise as I could, consistently with perspicuity. I have endeavored also to avoid all discussions of points purely theological, or pertaining only to the department of interpretation. If these endeavors have not been entirely successful, I hope the candid reader will, at least, find evidence to satisfy him that the Author has ¢ried to divest his work of every thing of a partisan or sectarian character. It has been my aim also, in accordance with the rules of the Union, to account for every change proposed, either in the Notes, or in the General Observations contained in this introduction. The citations of authorities might in many cases have been much more copious, had this been deemed necessary. Enough, it is hoped, have been given to satisfy the candid inquirer, on questions of minor importance; while, on questions likely to be controverted, the array of authorities is much more extensive.
Ui.—THE COMMON ENGLISH VERSION.
The Common English Version, (or, as it is commonly called, King James’ Version,) in this work, is printed from the American Bible Society’s pica edition of 1851 (41st). No intentional variations. from this have been made, except that a very few evident typographical errors have been corrected. This last remark applies equally to the Greek Text of the Bagsters, as printed in this work.
IV.—THE GREEK TEXT ADOPTED IN THIS REVISION.
According to the Rules, given above, ‘‘ Bagster & Sons’ octavo edition of 1851,” ‘“‘ with known errors corrected,” is the standard Greek Text. (See 1st Special, and 3d General Rule.) This edition of the Greek Text is that of Mill, which is almost an exact reprint of Stephens’ Third Edition, (folio, 1550,) and differs but slightly from the Second Elzevir Edition, or Textus Receptus. It would be, perhaps, useless to trace the history of this Text, which is well known to most readers. It is sufficient to say, that the Textus Receptus differs in but a few places from the Editio Princeps of Erasmus, or first printed edition; and that those few differences were the result of but a small increase of facilities in the department of textual criticism. Now, it is well known, that the Editio Princeps was made from a very small number of Manuscripts, and those all of comparatively recent date. It is equally well known that Stephens’ Third Edition, of which Mill’s is so nearly an exact copy, and also the Elzevirs, were printed before the discovery of a single one of the very
INTRODUCTION. 1x
ancient Manuscripts. The Tezrtus Receptus, therefore, is almost exclusively based upon Manuscripts — that are known to have been written during the middle ages; few, if any, of them dating further back than the tenth century. Yet there are two existing Manuscripts of the greater part of the N. T. (B & C) that are generally admitted by the learned to have been written either before, or during the fifth century, while many others are vastly superior in age to any one known to Erasmus or Stephens. Besides, the varieties of reading between the different Manuscripts, especially between the more ancient, and modern ones, are very considerable, and sometimes important. Need it be wondered at, then, if all those earlier printed editions are found to contain ‘known errors?”’ It is certain that the more modern editors have unanimously agreed, that the Received Text- contains a great number of errors and imperfections, though they may not have entirely agreed in determining what they are. And perhaps it may not be improper to remark, that the slowness of the earlier editors and critics to adopt the readings of the more ancient Manuscripts, however well sustained internally, affords at least a ground of suspicion that there was in the minds of those editors and critics a very considerable amount of prejudice in favor of readings whose sole recommendation, above others, was, that they had happened first to see the light of modern times. Indeed, there are scholars, even at the present day, who avow the conviction, that the Common Greek Text ought to be reverently handled, even in comparing it with the most ancient Manuscripts, because, as is alleged, it is the Text that has been furnished us by Divine Providence. Such persons seem to forget, that the same Providence who watched over the labors of an Erasmus and a Stephens, also presided over those of a Griesbach, a Scholz, a Tischendorf, and a host of other critics, who have since opened up, and made available, vast stores of critical apparatus, that were not even known to exist two hundred years ago. It is a remarkable fact, that, though Mill had the various readings of a great multitude of Manuscripts before him, and has noted them in his margin, yet, in his critical Text, he has made but one intentional alteration from the third edition of Stephens (see Bagsters’ Preface). Perhaps some may feel disposed to explain this singular fact, by alleging the extreme accuracy of Stephens’ Edition, and the evident purity of the sources whence it was drawn. But by far the more plausible explanation is found in the well known prevalence, in that age, of a veneration, almost superstitious, for the earlier printed editions; which inclined all the earlier editors to make their variations from them as few as possible. It can not be denied, however, that the influence of the superstitious veneration, alluded to above, has now in some measure subsided, and is fast dying out; so that one may confidently predict, that, within another quarter of a century, the Christian world will regard the readings of the Vatican, Ephrem, or Alexandrian Manuscript, as, at least, equal in authority to those of either of the four or five consulted by Erasmus; in preparing his first printed edition. Nay, more, that these very ancient Manuscripts, and others like them, will, from the evident care employed in their transcription, and other internal marks of their fidelity, and from their evident independence of each other, command an influence, which hundreds of those executed by the monks of the dark ages, (many of them in slavish subserviency to one common original,) will not exert.
As it is the desire of the A. B. Union, that known errors in the Text that is made the basis of their operations should be corrected, I have conceived it to be my duty carefully to compare the results of the labors of the various critics who have produced new and corrected editions of the Greek. Of those most constantly consulted are Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Hahn, Knapp, Theile, and Bloomfield. Others have been consulted occasionally on the more difficult places. Of all these, more deference has been paid to Tischendorf than to any other single one, as I can not but regard his stereotype edition, (of 1850,) as the best copy of the Greek Testament that has thus far been produced. And here it is but proper to acknowledge,
Χ INTRODUCTION.
that, for the purpose of saving time, the references to many of these editions are made, in this work, on the authority of Bagsters’ margin, or, more frequently, of Stier and Theile’s Polyglotten- Bibel, which has been found. from actual observation, to be very accurate, and to which I am glad to acknowledge my indebtedness for much and valuable information on this branch of the subject. Besides the authors already mentioned, Mill, Birch, Meyer, Alford, Kuincel, De Wette, and a few others, have been constantly consulted, as far as their writings bear upon the state of the Text. Meyer’s commentary, especially, has been found to contain much valuable matter in a convenient form. ‘Tischendorf’s fac-simile editions of the Ephrem and Parisian Manuscripts have also been consulted occasionally.
According to the Rules already referred to, two things appear to be certain—1. That the Reviser is expected to correct, (or, at least, to recommend in his notes that they be corrected,) all the ‘known errors” in Bagsters’ edition of Mill’s Testament.—2. That the Reviser is left to judge, from the best light he can obtain, what are known errors. This discretionary power has occasioned no sinall difficulty in the prosecution of this work. I suppose a known error may be defined to be “any reading which the Reviser may feel perfectly satisfied, from the evidences before him, is not in accordance with the autograph of the first penman.” But here a difficult question presents itsel{—How shall the Reviser make up his mind, in relation to a proposed reading? There are several ways in which this might be done.—1. By examining, for himself, all the original sources of evidence. This, in the present instance, no reasonable person could expect, nor would it, under any circumstances, be necessary or desirable—2. By adopting those emendations in which all the learned editors agree, and rejecting all others. This plan is certainly very simple and convenient, and its adoption would relieve one of a great load of responsibility; but I have not seen my way quite clear to adopt it, for the following reasons—(1) Because, if wxanimity be the object sought after, it is by no means attained in this way; since, not only Mill, but Stephens, and, in most cases, Erasmus, Beza, and the editors of the Elzevir and Complutensian Editions, are disregarded in the application of this rule; for these all substantially agree, except in the Apocalypse, of which the Complutensian, and earlier Erasmian copies are known to differ. Now here is quite an array of learned names, substantially sustaining the readings of the Textus Receptus. The readings of that copy are also sustained by a limited number of inferior Manuscripts. Who, then, shall say that any definite number of names shall suffice to set their authority aside? Certainly, absolute unanimity can not be claimed in favor of even a single reading differing from the Received Text.—(2) Because, in carrying out this plan consistently, it would be impossible to make any important emendation whatever; for, there is scarcely a reading of the Received Text that is not supported by one or more learned names. Indeed, Mill ought by no means to be excluded from the list of judges; for he was not only a man of great learning and laborious research, but, as has been remarked above, he had access to a multitude of various readings that were unknown to some of the earlier editors, yet he made but one intentional alteration from the copy by which he collated. If, then, any important use is to be made of the labors of scholars in the department of textual criticism, for the last two hundred years, it seems necessary to adopt some more liberal rule than this.—3. By adopting those emendations only which are recommended by scholars enjoying superior facilities for arriving at a just conclusion. This is, no doubt, the foundation on which the preceding rule is based. The rule itself might, however, We carried much further than has been done hitherto. Thus, Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Michaelis, Schulz, and Scholz, were destitute of some of the very best authorities in textual criticism. Ought, therefore, it may be asked, their judgment to be considered equal in authority to that of Lachmann, Tischendorf, or Theile? This is an important question, and certainly ought
INTRODUCTION. ΧΡ
to have its due weight in determining the genuineness of a proposed reading.—4. By examining the grounds on which each editor bases, and the authorities by which he supports, his preference for a given reading. This is an excellent plan, and should be followed as far as is practicable. But many editors have given their readings without specifying the grounds of the same, unless, perhaps, in terms too general to be satisfactory. Besides, we who are not personally conversant with Greek Manuscripts, are, in a measure, incompetent to judge of their respective merits. In determining such questions, we can not do better than to defer to the riper judgment of those whose lives have been devoted to such pursuits. At the same time, in judging of the relative degrees of authority of different Manuscripts, there are certain general common-sense principles which all, acquainted with the known facts, may safely venture to apply. Thus, if the very great antiquity of any Manuscript be universally acknowledged, its relative value, as an authority, is thereby enhanced, other circumstances being equal. If, besides, it be universally acknowledged, that the transcriber evidently employed great care and skill in the execution of his work, its value is still further enhanced by this circumstance. And if it be true also that its readings are, in the main, in accordance with the most ancient versions, this is an additional circumstance in its favor. Now, it will not be denied, that some Manuscripts are of much greater authority than others; and it is on this ground mainly, though not exclusively, that most of the variations from Bagsters’ Text, proposed in the following pages, are based. It is well known that there are, at least, two distinct classes of Greek Manuscripts, called Recensions—the Alexandrine, (including those by some cailed the Western,) and the Constantinopolitan. All the very old Manuscripts, including the Vatican (B), and the Ephrem (C), belong to the former Recension. It is, perhaps, equally well known, that Textual Critics have long been divided in their judgment as to the relative merits of these two Recensions. Of those who have favored the Constantinopolitan Manuscripts, perhaps Matthei and Scholz are most conspicuous; while, of those who favor the other Recension, Lachmann and Tischendorf are prominent. I will not now rehearse the arguments for either side, but simply express the settled conviction, that the more ancient Manuscripts, though they are by no means to be considered infallible, are nevertheless by far more reliable than those of more modern date. I have, therefore, frequently recommended the adoption of a reading condemned by Scholz, Matthzi, Bloomfield, and others of the same school, but recommended by Griesbach, Lachmann, Meyer, and Tischendorf, giving the preference, in all cases in which I could only decide by authority, to the three last named, for the simple reason that their facilities for obtaining accurate and thorough information, on such questions, are believed to have been superior to those of almost any other.
I have, therefore, been governed by the following rules, in determining the State of the Text—1. I have not ventured to entertain a doubt as to the genuineness of a reading, which may have been impugned by only a single critic; neither would I, in any case, recommend the adoption of a merely conjectural emendation, however plausible-—2. When a majority of the leading editors, including the more recent ones, have decided in favor of a reading, I recommend its adoption, unless I can discover some pretty strong internal evidence against it—3. When a respectable number of the more recent editors, especially of those who are known to favor the Alexandrine Recension, agree in adopting a reading, I have endeavored to examine the evidence, both external and internal, for and against it, and have decided accordingly.—In_ recommending the adoption of a new reading, I have made it a rule, whenever the change seemed to be of much importance, to give my reasons in the accompanying note, otherwise it has been deemed suflicient to quote the authorities simply. It must be added, however, that sometimes it is recommended, that a reading condemned by some of the latest and best critics be retained, simply because the
X11 INTRODUCTION.
internal evidence was thought to be strongly in its favor, while the external evidence was not wholly opposed. Thus I have endeavored to avoid both extremes; and, however numerous, in the judgment of others, may be the faults of the present work, in this respect, the reader may rest assured, that the plan has been laid and executed with an honest intention; and, as to any error of judgment that may appear, he will find little difficulty in laying the blame where it properly belongs.
V.—QUESTIONS LAID OVER FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
Many amendments have been suggested to my mind, in the progress of this revision, which, though they seemed well worthy of consideration, I did not feel quite ready to adopt. These have been laid over for further consideration. Some of them are of such a nature that they fall more particularly within the sphere of the labors of other Revisers, since the words in question occur more frequently in the portions assigned to them than in this Gospel.
1. Should exdvuwe«e be rendered, (as it usually is in the Common English Version,) Just, or, simply, desire, leaving it to be determined by the context what kind of desire is meant? This word might be rendered desire in every case of its occurrence, without injury, and this rendering might be given to i exclusively. It is also worthy of consideration, whether dust is not more restricted in its popular use at the present day, than ἐπεϑυμία ever is, even by the context. This word occurs but once in this Gospel, ch. 8 : 44.
2. Should πορνεία be rendered, (as it always is in the Common English Version) fornication, or, in a more general sense, wncleanness, as including all kinds of violations of the law of chastity? It is certain that in Matt. 5 : 32. 19:9, this word refers to adultery, as also in most cases where it is to be taken in a figurative sense. In all these cases it is, of course, improper to translate it fornication. It is certainly well worth our consideration whether the general term, wncleanness, would not, in nearly all cases, convey the mind of the Spirit better than any other. This word occurs but once in this Gospel, ch. 8 : 41.
3. Is it practicable to make use of the quotation marks in the translation of the Scriptures? In favor of the affirmative it is said, that we not only have a right, but it is our duty, to punctuate the translation, though the Greek originally had no punctuation, and was not even divided into words; but we have as good a right to make quotation marks as periods, or notes of interrogation, since the former are a part of our regular system of punctuation. To this it may be replied— (1) That all punctuation is, more or less, of the nature of a commentary; and that even so much of commentary ought to be avoided in a translation, if it is possible to dispense with it.—(2) That while custom absolutely requires us to use periods, commas, &¢., no such requirement exists in regard to quotation marks. Therefore, if we use these, we comment on the text more than is necessary. I hope this question will receive a due share of the attention of revisers.
4. Should the perfect tense of the neuter verb ever be formed by the auxiliary, to be? For myself, I confess my ear is not offended by such expressions as, I am come, he is. gone, he is fallen asleep, &c., and I would have no objection to the use of such forms, unless in violation of the laws of euphony. But it seems to be the general preference of Grammarians, at the present day, to discard this mode of conjugation albseotlen as a Gallicism. As this is a matter that can easily be attended to hereafter, I have thought best to make no changes at present, except those that euphony and the sense of the passages seemed to require.
5. Should 6 Xocoros be rendered, the Anointed, or the Messiah, or the Christ? I am satisfied that it should never be rendered simply, Christ; for, though Xgcoros, without the article, was used by
INTRODUCTION. xili
all the Writers of the N. T. as a strict proper name, I do not believe that 6 ἄριστος ever entirely loses its etymological significance as an appellative = The Anointed One. Accordingly, I have uniformly, in this work, rendered this expression, the Christ. (An apparent exception occurs in ch. 1 : 41, which see.) But the question is, Would it not be better to substitute the English word, Anointed, or the Hebrew word, Messiah,—the former, as conveying to the reader at once the meaning of the word, as an appellative,—the latter, as being already familiar from its frequent occurrence in the Ὁ. T.? There is, perhaps, a certain harshness in the expression, the Christ, that does not belong to either of the others. This question is, I think, well worthy of careful consideration.
6. Should 6 Saravas be rendered, the Accuser, or, (as it always is in the Common English Version,) Satan? It is, I believe, universally conceded that 6 Sacavas, and 6 “εαβολος, the Devil, are synonymous. In view of this fact, it is much to be doubted whether the former should not either be rendered, according to its literal import, the Accuser, which would distinguish it from its synonym, 6 “Παβολος, or, like the latter, the Devil, applying the same English word to both. Or there is still another way in which the matter might be disposed of. Both these words might be translated, the Accuser, which would convey to the reader a just idea of their common meaning. Both Satan and the Devil are objectionable on the ground that they are not proper translations, but rather transfers, and both assume, in the mind of the English reader, the character of proper names. The former is further objectionable, on the ground that it does not admit the article. This word occurs but once in this Gospel, ch. 13: 27. I hope the subject will be thoroughly sifted by other revisers.
7. Should dacuwormfouevos be rendered demonized, or, possessed of a demon, or, having a demon, or, demoniac? It is evident from ch. 10 : 20, 21, of this Gospel, that this word is = εχων dacuorov: but, as demonize is a word in good use, and undoubtedly means exactly what the Greek term does, it is well worth while to consider whether those passages in which this word occurs may not be much simplified by a literal translation. This word occurs, in this Gospel, only in the passage cited above.
8. How should «os, and its derivatives, be translated? Many good scholars are of opinion that ἅγιος properly means, sacred, or consecrated, while holy, if, indeed, it ever has this meaning, is not only a secondary, but a very unusual meaning of the term. This is a very important question. But, as this word occurs but jive times in this Gospel, while its occurrence is very frequent elsewhere, I have preferred to suspend the examination till a future occasion, hoping that, in the mean time, other revisers may give their views in relation to-it.
9. How should a» be translated? This word is seldom translated literally in the Common English Version. It is often translated world, confounding it with κόσμος, which should, if possible, be avoided. I am under the impression that it may be possible to give a literal rendering almost, if not quite, always, though this would require great care and circumspection. I have changed the translation in this work, only in some negative clauses where es toy αἰῶνα preceded by ov, μη, ΟΥ̓ ov μη, is rendered never, in the Common Version. I hope that at the proper time this whole question will be thoroughly sifted.
10. How should zag be rendered? It is, I think, doubtful, at least, whether the idea of Jreeness is in this word, or not; but this idea is, I apprehend, inherent in the word, grace. Now is it not well worth while to inquire whether kindness, or favor, or some equivalent term, would not be better than grace, to translate this word. The term occurs only three times in this Gospel, ch. 1 : 14, 16, 17, all in the same connection, for which reason, I prefer to make no change for the present.
11. How should ανακεισϑαι, ἀναπίπτειν», (exe, ch. 18 : 25,) be translated, when spoken of the
xiv INTRODUCTION.
posture observed at meals?—No little effort has been made in the hope of finding some simple term that would convey to the English reader an exact idea of the meaning of these terms, but hitherto without success. I am not without hope, however, that the united efforts of the different reyisers who may in future examine these terms, may meet with better success. Certainly it is desirable, at least, to improve the Common Version in this particular.
12. There are several prepositions of which I have changed the rendering in some cases, where it was evident that the precise sense was not conveyed in the Common Version. And the question is becoming in my mind every day more important, whether we ought not in very many other cases to be more literal in the rendering of prepositions, especially of those which are often used in precisely opposite senses, as «s, into, and «x, out of. Thus, I have rendered ἐκ τοὺ ovgaror, out of heaven, in ch. 3: 13, because the contrast of εἰς and εκ is there unmistakable ; and, perhaps, these prepositions in connection with ovgavos might always be literally rendered, in perfect consistency with our idiom. ‘This is, however, a delicate subject, and I prefer not to be hasty in a matter of so great importance.
VI.—CONCLUDING REMARK.
It would, doubtless, be too much to hope, that, in a work of this character, no mistakes will be found. Still, the effort has been, to make the book as faultless, in this respect, as the nature of the case admits of. It is confidently hoped, that those who may discover errors, especially in the citations, will find it more agreeable to their own feelings to point them out to some one who may see to their prompt correction, than to make them the subject of fruitless
cavil. This I am sure they will not do, if they have confidence in the Author’s sincerity. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS, AND THE
WORKS MOST FREQUENTLY CITED.
{[== This List does not contain the names of many of the Authors cited from Booth, at the end of note a, ch. 1 : 25, to which the reader is referred.
Aeth. (Aethiop.)—Aethiopic Version. tuagint. Author and date unknown. and others.
Alf.—Alford’s Greek Testament. London, 1849.
All.—Allioli’s German Version. New York, 1848.
Amb.—Ambrosii Opera. Paris, 1686. Cited, generally, from
Made from the Sep- Cited from Mill,
Aret.—Aretus. Cited from Meyer.
Aug.—Augustini Opera. Paris, 1685,
Baur. Cited from Meyer and Olshausen.
Beng.—Bengel’s Gnomon. Tubinga and London, 1850. Bent.—Bentley. Cited from Penn.
Beza’s Latin Version. Junius’ Edition, St. Gervasius, 1607. B. Crus.—B. Crusius.
Meyer.
Apoll.—Apollonius. Cited from Mever.
Arab.—Arabic Version. Cited from Mill, Walton, Meyer, and others.
Cited from Meyer, and others. Berl. B‘b.—Berlenburger Bibel. Cited from the Polyglotten- Bibel.
Birch’s Four Gospels. Haynia, 1788.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Bleek. Cited from Meyer.
Blo.—Bloomfield’s Critical Digest. London, 1826.
& Greek Testament. Boston, 1837.
Booth’s Peedobaptism Examined. London, 1829.
Buttm.—Buttmann’s Greek Grammar. Robinson’s Transla- tion, Andoyer, 1833, and New York, 1851.
Bos’ Greek Ellipses. Glasgow, 1813.
Byneus. Cited from Bloomfield.
Calmet’s Dictionary, and Fragments. London, 1830.
Caly.—Calyin’s Commentary on John. ‘Tholuck’s Edition. Berlin.
Camp.—George Campbell’s Four Gospels. Andover, 1837.
Casaub.—Casaubon. Cited from Meyer, and others.
Cassiod.—Cassiodorus. Cited from Meyer.
Cast.—Castalio’s Latin Version. Leipsic, 1750.
Catenze Ed.—Editions of the Catena, Cited from Bloomfield, and others.
Chrys.—Chrysostom’s Works. Paris, 1718.
Clemens. Cited from Middleton.
Const. Apost.—Constitutiones Apostolice. Cited from Bloom- field, Meyer, and others.
Copt.—Coptie Version. Cited from Mill, Meyer, and others.
Corn. a Lap.—Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on the Four Gospels. Antwerp, 1660.
Cosmas. Cited from Meyer.
C.—Cranmer’s English Version. Hexapla.
Credn.—Credner. Cited from Meyer.
Cypr.—Cyprian’s Works. Cited from Meyer.
Cyr.—Cyril. Cited from Meyer, and others.
De W.—De Wette’s German Version. Heidelberg, 1839.
τ Commentary on John. Leipsic, 1846. Dodd.—Doddridge’s Family Expositor. Amherst, 1833. Drusius. From Critici Sacri. London, 1660.
Dubois’ (Bishop) Revised Edition of the Rhemish Testament. Utica, 1831.
Dt.—Dutch Version. New York, 1850. Some of the cita- tions are made from an old Amsterdam Edition, without date.
E. V—Common English, or King James’ Version. American Bible Society’s Edition, 1851. Sometimes quoted from Bagsters’ Hexapla, from which the marginal readings are all taken.
Erasm.—Erasmus’ Latin Version. Edition of 1516.
μ Commentary on John. Basle, 1519.
Eusebius’ History. Cited from Meyer, and others.
Euth.—Euthymius’ Commentaries. Cited from Bloomfield, Meyer, and others.
Faxardus, Petrus. Cited from Mill.
Fr. O.—French Version of Ostervald. British and Foreign Bible Society’s Edition.
Fr. S.—Swiss French Version. Lausanne and Lyons, 1849.
Fr. M.— French Version of Martin. American Bible Society’s Edition, 1852.
Fr. G.—Geneva French Version. the A. B. Society, 1826.
From Bagsters’ English
Edition of 1805, revised by
XV
Fr. B. and L.—French Version of Beausobre and Lenfant. Amsterdam, 1718.
Fr. Verss.—French Versions, including the first four men- tioned above.
G.—Genevan English Version. Hexapla.
Germ.—German Version of Luther. New York, 1848. Some times from the Polyglotten-Bibel.
Glass’ Works. Cited from Bloomfield, and others.
Gills Commentaries. Philadelphia, 1811.
Goth.—Gothic Version. Cited from Mill, and others,
Goss.—Gossner. Cited from the Polyglotten-Bibel.
Green, T.S. Grammar of the N. Τὶ Dialect. London, 1842.
Griesb.—Griesbach’s Greek Testament. Cited from Theile’s Knapp, Bagsters’ Mill, and the Polyglotten-Bibel.
Grotius’ Annotations on John. Amsterdam, 1641.
Hen.—Henlein’s Introduction to the New Testament. from Kuineel.
Hahn’s Greek Testament. glotten-Bibel.
Heinsius. Cited from Middleton.
Hieron.—Hieronymus. Cited from Meyer, and Bloomfield.
Homberg. Cited from Meyer.
Hoogey.—Hoogeveen. Cited from Hermann’s Viger.
It.—Italian Version of Diodati. Bagsters’ Edition.
Jansen. Cited from Meyer.
Jahn’s Biblical Archeology.
Juvencus. Cited from Bloomfield, and others.
Kend.—-Kendrick’s Revision. Philadelphia, 1842.
Kenr.—Kenrick’s (Bishop) Four Gospels. New York, 1849.
Kist—Kistemaker. From the Polyglotten-Bibel.
Klee. Cited from Meyer.
Kling. Cited from Meyer.
Knapp’s Greek Testament. Theile’s Revised Edition. Leipsic, 1852. Cited sometimes from the Polyglotten-Bibel.
Krabbe. Cited from Meyer.
Kihn.—Kiuhner’s Greek Grammar. Translation. Andover, 1844.
Kuin.—Kuinel’s Commentary on John. London, 1835.
Kyphe. Cited from Parkhurst, and others.
Lach. (Lachm.)—Lachmann’s Greek Testament. Berlin, 1846
Lampe. Cited from Bloomfield, and others.
Lange. Cited from Meyer.
Latin Verss.—Latin Versions, including all those described in
this list.
Cited from Meyer.
Le Clere. Cited from Middleton.
Leunclavius. Cited from Middleton.
Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon. New York, 1846.
Lightfoot’s Horz Hebraice. Cited from Bloomfield.
Licke. Cited from Meyer, Bloomfield, and others.
Lus.—Lusitanian, or Portuguese Version. From Bagsters’ Polyglott. This must not be confounded with the Portu- guese Version described below. This is a yersion of the Latin Vulgate ; that is a literal and very faithful transla- tion from the Hebrew and Greek.
From Bagsters’ English
Cited
Cited, generally, from the Poly-
Edwards and Taylor’s
Leo.
xvi LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS.
Luther’s Commentaries. Cited from various authors.
Maier. Cited from Meyer.
Marsh (Bishop). Cited from Penn.
Maldonat.—Maldonatus. Cited from Meyer.
Matthaei’s Greek Testament. Riga, 1784.
Meyer’s Greek Testament. Gittingen, 1829.
Commentary on John. Gdéttingen, 1852.
Meursius. Cited from Middleton.
Michaelis. Cited from Bloomfield.
Midd.—Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article. York, 1813.
Mill’s Greek Testament. Leipsic, 1723.
Morus. Cited from Meyer.
Murd.—Murdoch’s Translation of the Syriac.
1852.
Nary’s Version. Edition of 1718.
Newce.—Newcome’s Version. Dublin, 1796.
Nonnus’ Metrical Version. Cited from various authors.
Origen’s Works. Paris, 1733.
Ols.—Olshausen’s Commentary on the Gospels. 1849.
Papias. Cited from Penn, and others.
Parkh.—Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon.
Passow’s Greek Lexicon. Leipsic Edition.
Paulus’ Commentaries. Cited from Meyer. Kuincel, and others.
Pearce (Bishop). Cited from Bloomfield, and others.
Penn’s New Coyenant, and Annotations. London, 1837.
Port.—Portuguese Version, by the Bishop of Batavia.
Philo. Cited from Middleton.
R.—Rhemish Version. From Bagsters’ English Hexapla.
Rob.—Robinson’s Greek Lexicon. Boston, 1836, and New York, 1850.
Rosenm.—Rosenmiiller’s Scholia on the New Testament. Norimberga, 1827.
Scaliger. Cited from Middleton.
Scheettgen. Cited from Bloomfield, and others.
Scholz? Greek Testament. From Bagsters’ English Hexapla.
Schott’s Latin Version. Leipsic, 1825.
Schweitzer, Cited from Meyer.
Scott’s Commentary. Philadelphia, 1852.
Sedul.—Sedulius. Cited from Meyer, and others.
Semler. Cited from Kuincel.
Sept.—Greek Version of the Seventy.
Seyffarth. Cited from Meyer.
Sharpe’s Version. London, 1844.
Spencer’s New Testament. New York, 1847.
Statidlin. Cited from various authors.
New
New York,
Edinburgh,
| Sturz.
Stier. Cited from Meyer and others.
Stolz? German Version. Hanover, 1804. Cited sometimes from the Polyglotten-Bibel.
Cited from Middleton.
Swed.—Swedish Version. Brit. and For. Bible Society’s Ed.
Symmachus. Cited from Parkhurst.
Syr.—Syriac Version (Peschito). Bagsters’ Edition.
Syr. Hieros.—Jerusalem Syriac Version. Cited from Birch.
Tatian’s Harmony of the Gospels. Cited from Bloomfield.
Tertull.—Tertullian’s Works. Leipsic, 1853.
Text. Rec.—The Received Greek Text.
Tisch.—Tischendorf’s Greek Testament. Leipsic, 1850.
Tittm.—Tittmann’s Meletemata Sacra. Cited from Kuineel.
Theile’s Revision of Knapp’s Greek Testament. Fourth Stereo- type Edition. Leipsic, 1852.
Theodorus Mopsu.w—Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Bloomfield.
Theodotion. Cited from Parkhurst.
Tholuck. Cited from Meyer, and others.
Trem.—Tremellius’ Latin Version of the Syriac. Edition. St. Gervasius, 1607.
Trollope’s Analecta Theologica. London, 1842.
Greek Grammar to the New Testament.
Stereotype Edition,
Cited from
Junius’
1842. T.—Tyndale’s Version. From Bagsters’ English Hexapla. Van Ess’ German Version. Hildburghausen, Amsterdam, and
Philadelphia, 1845.
Vat. (Vatab.)—Vatablus’ Latin Version. Salamanca, 1584. Viger, de Idiotismis. Fourth Edition, (Hermann’s,). Leipsic,
1834.
Vulg.—Latin Vulgate.
Bagsters’ Polyglott. Webster’s Dictionary. Wakefield’s New Testament, and Notes. Cambridge, 1820. Wegsch.—Weescheiderus’ Introduction to the Gospel of John.
Cited from Kuincel, and Meyer.
Wells. Cited from Middleton.
Wesl.—Wesley’s Translation and Notes. New York, 1850. Wets.—Wetstein. Cited from various authors.
W.—Wiclif’s Version. From Bagsters’ English Ilexapla. Weisse. Cited from Meyer.
Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament Idiom.
1844,
Wolf’s Curz Philologice et Critica. Basle, 1741. Worcester’s Dictionary. Boston, 1846. Zigerus. From the Critici Sacri, London, 1660, and Meyer.
London,
From the Polyglotten-Bibel, and
Leipsic,
‘THE HOLY GOSPEL. BY JOHN.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
CHAP. I.
In tue beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. uae Gea
nv ο Aoyos.
2 The same was in the begin- ning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Θεόν.
ὃ γέγονεν. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness com- prehended it not.
κατέλαβεν.
GREEK TEXT, CHAP. I. "EN ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς
Ὁ 3 > ’ “ Ν Ν 2 οὗτος nv ἐν ἀρχῇ προς τὸν
: ΄ ἐμάς ΄ 3 Πάντα δὶ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, >. >3 δ, VA καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν,
᾽ » ΄“ Ne Φ. αι ἐς Ν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν, καὶ 1) ζωὴ > a a ᾽ nv τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, \ Ν fol a 5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν TH σκοτίᾳ , XQ « / 3 ἈΝ ie φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ
REVISED VERSION,
CHAP. I.
In tHe beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the *Word was God.
2 ‘He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not ‘even one thing made that “Πα ἢ been made.
4 In him was life; and the Life was the light of men.
5 And the Light shineth in ‘the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
* The ἅγεον of this Title certainly belongs to Ευαγγελιον, not to Jwavynv.—As it is universally conceded, that the Titles of the Books of the N. T. were not given by inspiration, and, as I consider simplicity, in such matters, the height of orna- ment, I would prefer that adopted by Scholz, which I would translate, “The Gospel. By John.”
> Vulg., W., C., R., Cast., Germ., take Θεὸς, in this clause, as subject, and 6 λογος as predicate. Most interpreters, how- ever, with the E. V., reverse this order. Tyndale first adopted this course; but Coverdale, in revising Tyndale, rejected his correction of this clause. The collocation favors the more ancient, while the sense seems to favor the more modern, ren- dering. The whole question turns, I apprehend, upon whether Θεος is here used as a proper name, or not. If it is a proper name, the absence of the article does not, (as has been sup- posed by some,) afford any evidence in fayor of the Common Version ; for proper names are often, and properly, anarthrous. See 1 John 2: 22; 4:15; 5: 1,5, where Ζησους, without the article, is used precisely as Qeos, (if a proper name,) in this verse. But if Θεος is not a proper name, it must, in this case, be taken as the predicate, for, though this word is used a few times indefinitely, as the subject of a proposition, (as in 2 Cor. 5:19. Gal. 2:6; 6:7. 1 Thess. 2:5. {1 Tim, 3: 16],) yet those sentences are all different in their structure from this. We can say, for example, “A God is not mocked ;” but we can not say, “A God was the Word.” Hence, we have only to determine whether Θεὸς is here to be taken definitely, or inde- finitely. After a careful and somewhat extended examination,
Tam pretty well convinced that this word, with the article, 7s always definite, without it, always indefinite. I take the meaning to be, simply, “the Word was a Divine Being ;” but, as this is the more obvious meaning of the E. V., “the Word was God,” I would not at present propose any change. I hope to give this subject a more thorough investigation at a future time, and in a connection where the discussion of it more properly belongs.
¢ The same is, properly, 6 avros. I belieye there is no passage in the N. T. in which οὗτος may not be translated, this, this man, or he. Accordingly, I have, in all cases, con- fined myself within these limits, selecting one or the other word, according to the connection, or the requirements of euphony. For the device adopted to indicate different degrees of emphasis in the pronouns, see Gen. Obs. 3.
4 Ovde is rendered not even, in the Εἰ. V., ch. 21: 25. Matt. 6:29. 1 Cor. 11: 14.—There are several other passages in which I would so render it.—Ey is rendered one thing, in ch. 9: 25, Luke 18: 22. Phil. 3: 14. 2 Pet. 3: 8.—Wesl. (not one single thing); Dodd. (not so much as one single being); (Camp. (not a single creature); Trem. (ne una qui- dem res); Schott (ne ullum quidem). “Οὐδὲ ἕν has an in- tensive force.” (Blo.)
* See Gen. Obs. 4—Vulg., Calv., Beza, Eras., Trem., Schott, Beng. (factum est [sit]). “ Praeteritum, yeyover, sonat quiddam magis absolutum quam Aoristus, ἐγένετο." (Beng.).—It., Fr. O.,-S.,-M.
2 THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. I.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
6 There was a man sent from Gus Eyévero
God, whose name was John.
αὐτῷ ᾿]ωάννης.
7 The same came for ἃ witness,
to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through him might | ,, believe.
GREEK TEXT.
/ Ν a » oTaApevos παρὰ Θεοῦ, ovopa
ἐν δ᾽ » , οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτὸς, ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσι δὲ αὐτοῦ.
REVISED VERSION.
6 There was a man,® sent from
yy ἄνθρωπος ἀπε- God, “his name was John.
7 ‘He came for ‘Jtestimony, *that he might ‘testify of the Light, so that all! might believe »through him.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light,
8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ᾽ Uh rt iva μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός.
x \ fol ἊΝ 9 ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν, ὃ
8 "He was not °the Light; but was sent *that he might 'tes- tify of ethe Light.
9 The true Light, which ren-
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
, ΄ὔ y+ ’ / φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, €pxo- Ν / μενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. fal / 3 10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. ἦν, καὶ κόσμος δι αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. 11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε, καὶ οἱ 35, > Ν > , ἴδιοι αὐτὸν ov παρέλαβον.
lighteneth every man, “ΘΔ Π16 into the world.
δ᾽ 10 He was in the world, and ὁ | the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came to his own, * and
his own received him not.
δ See Gen. Obs. 4.—The E. V., Camp., Dodd., Sharpe, and many others, seem to have regarded eyeveto .. . ἀπεσταλμενος =v... ἀπεστ., was sent. This is probably wrong, as we know of no authority for such a use of ywouwa. I am satis- fied that syevero here means, properly, there arose, came, or appeared ; but as the idea is sufficiently clear from the con- text, I prefer to retain the common rendering, there was,
h A. B. U. Revis. of Rev., ch. 6: 8.—De W. (sein Name Jo- hannes); Van Ess (Namens Johannes).—Though this idiom may sound strangely at first, yet it is hoped that its great sim- plicity, and literal conformity to the Orig. Text, will recommend it to the “sober second thought” of the reader.
i E. V., Camp., Sharpe, Nary, Penn, and others, seem to take μαρτυρία in the sense of «agrvg. This taking one word for another, when the sacred writer could have used the latter just as easily as the former, I consider as, at best, of doubtful propriety. As the sense does not require it, I can see no ne- cessity for so doing in the present case. With Erasm., I take ad testificandum, i.e. for the purpose of testifying ; while what follows is designed to enforce, in more definite terms, the idea already conveyed (Blo.). I omit the indef. art. a, because for a testimony (Newc., Wesl.), may be understood to be = as a witness, while the Orig. expresses, not the character in which, but the purpose for which, he came.—Vulg., Trem., (in testimonium); Beza (ad dandum testimonium) ; Schott (¢estimoniwm daturus) ; Germ., De W. (zum Zeugniss).
} R., It., Port., Germ., Van Ess, De W., Beza, Trem., Erasm., Vulg., Cast., Dt., Beng., Fr. §.—The word witness is used in- discriminately in the E. V. for uagtve, μαρτυρία, and μαρτυ- ecw. In order to remove all ambiguity, I would render the
εἰς μαρτυρίαν to be =
first, witness, the second, testimony, and the last, testify, in all cases.
k W., Port., Dt., Swed., Vulg., Cast., Erasm., Beza, Trem., Schott, Germ., De W.—For the sake of uniformity, I would render iva, that, or so that, in almost all cases, as, indeed, it is usually rendered in the Τῇ. V.
m See Gen. Obs. 5. » See Gen, Obs. ὃ.
° Dt., Fr. O.-S.—M., It., Swed., Port., Germ., Van Ess, De W., Penn, Kenr., Camp., Wesl.—I have also put the for that in y. 25, below. I think I would never translate the art. by the demonstr. pronoun.
PE. V., Eph. 1: 18. Hebr. 6: 4—Germ. (erleuchtet); Dt. (verlicht) ; Fr. O.-S.—M., (claire) ;-Camp., Kenr.
9 The B. V. of ἐρχόμενον is pretty generally condemned by the best critics, who refer this word, not to ανϑρωπον, but to φως; while the Vulg. and many of the ancient fathers, refer it to ανϑρωπον. Camp. considers the Orig. ambiguous. Upon the whole, I prefer the view of Beng. that 7... ἐρχόμενον is, or has the force of an imperfect. This form of the imperfect is by no means uncommon in John. See v. 28, below, ch. 3 : 23, ete.
τ The phrase, εἰς ta «dca, is variously interpreted. Camp. renders it to his own home, agreeing substantially with Grot., Kuin., Schott, and many others. Parkh. supplies ovmnuara, others δωματα. Dodd. translates, into his own [territories]. Alf. says that it means, “to his own inheritance, or possession, i.e. Judea; and of cdcoz, the Jews;” and to this, perhaps, the majority of interpreters agree. There are, however, those who understand τὰ cdcea to be = the κοσμος of the preceding verse.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. ΟΗΑΡ, 1. 3
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: | / og
ὄνομα αὑυτοῦ"
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. :
νήηθησαν.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory
5. While there are passages in which εξουσεα undoubtedly means right, or privilege, yet Alf. well observes, that it here implies more than this, and is properly expressed by power (De W.), “including all the actions and states needful to their so becoming.” It is needless to add, that power is here used in an extended sense, as is abundantly evident from the con- text.
t Germ., Dt., Swed., Fr. O.,-S.—M., Camp., Kenr., Van Ess, De W., Schott.—For the omission of the art. see Gen. Obs, 1.
υ See Gen. Obs. 6. v See Gen. Obs. 4.
w Cast., Beza, Trem., Beng., Stolz, Swed., Fr. S.—I would venture to suggest the following rules for the translation of yevvaew.—|. When spoken of natural and ordinary generation, as in Matt. 1: 2-16. Luke 1: 13, 57, &c., as a matter of course, the father begets, while the mother bears, or brings forth. So also, when spoken metaphorically of a man, as in 1 Cor, 4: 15. Philemon 10.—2. When spoken of God, as the sole efficient canse of either natural and physical, or spiritual and super- natural existence, as in Matt. 1: 20. Luke 1: 35, and in 1 John throughout, as also when spoken of the divine generation of the Son, Acts 13: 33. Heb. 1:5; 5:5, let it be rendered, to beget.—3. When spoken of the instrumental causes, or agen-
GREEK TEXT. A. of » Ν yi
12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτὸν, ἔδω-
΄ Ve 7 ΄
κεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ
a , > x
γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς TO
4
> ε ΄ »ῸᾺΝ 18 οἱ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ Ν IQ 9 / θελήματος σαρκὸς, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελή- > \ > > > cal > ματος ἀνδρὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεν-
΄-- tf 14 Kai ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, (καὶ ἐθεα- / a. σάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν
REVISED VERSION.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he spower to become ‘children of God, even to “those vbelieving on his name:
13 Who wwere begotten, not of *blood, nor of Ya will of ! flesh, nor of ya will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we «saw his glory, *a glory as
cies, whether created or uncreated, employed by the Father in regeneration, as in ch. 3: 3, 5, 6, 8, let it be rendered, to bear, or bring forth (passive, to be born). So also, when simply spoken of birth, whether natural or supernatural, with- out any particular reference to the causes, or agencies employed in producing it, as in Matt. 2: 1,4; 26: 24, and a multitude of other cases. Gal, 4: 24, and 2 Tim. 2: 23, will bear either rendering, perhaps equally well.
x The Orig. is in the plural form, bloods. Penn so translates it; but this can hardly be called good English. While, then, I would recommend no change, I suggest that the following note be appended to the Revision: Greek, bloods.
y A will of flesh =a carnal will: a will of man = a human will. So De W. (aus Fleischeslust ...aus Mannes- Lust). The absence of the art., I think, justifies this mode of translation.
* E. V. often.—Became, in this connection, sounds less harshly than was made, and is more in harmony with the fact that the Savior voluntarily assumed humanity.
a W., T., G., R., Germ., Swed., Port., Vulg., Alf, Kenr.—I would translate PeaeoIae uniformly, to see.
> R., Germ., It., Fr. O.,-S., Van Ess, De W., Dt.—See Gen. Obs. 1.
After a careful examination of various authorities, I have been led to the following conclusions: 1. That there is here no par- ticularreference to the Messiah’s coming to the Jews, as his peculiar people, or to Judea, as his peculiax inheritance ; but that both, τὰ ἐδέα and οἱ ἐδὲοι, refer to the κοσμος of the pre- ceding verse. This interpretation is, I think, more in harmony with the context than one more restricted.—2. That, as this xoouos is, in the first clause of y. 10, evidently put for the material world, and its inhabitants, while, in the latter clause, its meaning is as evidently restricted to the rational inhabitants of the world ;—so, in this verse, ta «dea means, all that is peculiarly his own, namely, the material world, with all the objects it contains, animate and inanimate, including its rational inhabitants, to whom he was especially sent with the Gospel of salvation, and who are the οἱ ἐδὲοε of the latter clause. Ta
cdca is neuter, not because it refers only to things without life, but because it comprehends all the Messiah’s own, including in- animate and irrational objects, the whole being viewed as one mass, or single object of thought, without regard to the ra- tionality or accountability of any portion of it. The word representing such a collection of objects, is properly put in the neuter. See ch. 17: 10, where the neuters, τὰ ewa, and ra oa, are used in precisely the same manner. TI cannot but consider this view more philosophical than that of Rob. and others, who arrive at almost the same conclusion by supposing that the neuter is here put for the masculine. While, therefore, the E. γ΄ does not absolutely express all the meaning of the Original, for want of the means of distinguishing the gender of the pro- nouns, yet it is, perhaps, the best translation of ta ἐδέα that the cireumstances admit of.
4 THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. I.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
as of the only begotten of the|as μονογενοῦς Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me, is preferred before me ; for he was before me.
GREEK TEXT.
πλήρης χάριτος Kal ἀληθείας.
15 ᾿Τωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ av- τοῦ, καὶ κέκραγε λέγων, Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον, O ὀπίσω μου ἐρχό- μενος, ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν" ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.
REVISED VERSION.
of «the only begotten “οἵ «the Father,) full of grace and ‘of truth.
15 John ‘testifieth of him, and fhath cried, saying, ‘He it was of whom I £said, He that cometh after me 515 become before me; ‘because he was before me.
\ Ν παρὰ πατρὸς.)
© T have inserted the art. both before wovoyevovs and πατρος, simply because I can find no authority for omitting it, among all the translators and commentators to whose works I have access. Had I not dreaded the charge of presumption, I should have omitted it in both cases, and rendered the clause thus: ὦ glory as of one only begotten of a father. I am well aware that words, used indefinitely in Greek, are sometimes necessarily accompanied by the def. art. in English: but I can see no such necessity in the present instance. No scholar will deny, that the indefinite rendering above given, makes quite as good English as the other. It is also unquestionably the more literal of the two. The only question, then, that de- serves examination is this: Which of the two renderings ex- presses the more clearly the meaning of the Spirit? In regard to the meaning of ὡς, I believe it is commonly used, in such a connection as this, to compare, not to declare, and nothing but the clear indications of the context should lead us to ex- plain it in this latter sense. I understand the idea of the Orig. to be this: That the glory of the Word, as seen by John and others, (perhaps on the mount of transfiguration) was a glory in perfect harmony with the relations subsisting between a father and an only son; i.e. that, as an only son possesses by inheritance, entire and undivided, all the rights, titles, and prerogatives of his father, so this Divine Word eyidently pos- sessed ‘“‘all the fulness of the Godhead,” and was, indeed, the very “brightness of the Father’s glory, the express image of his person.” J freely admit that both translations convey sub- stantially the same idea, but I am convinced that the entire omission of the art. would render the clause more consistent and perspicuous.—But there are grammatical objections to the common rendering: 1. In every case in which μονογενὴς is un- doubtedly spoken of the Son of God, it is accompanied by the art. See y. 18, below, ch. 3: 16,18. 1 John 4: 9. This is per- fectly in accordance with the philosophy of language, as could easily be shown.—2. The noun, πατὴρ, spoken of God, is very seldom without the art. There is not an instance of such use in this Gospel, if we except the one under consideration. There are not more, perhaps, than three or four such instances in the other three Gospels.
4 Should παρα be understood in its almost universal sense of from, or in the rare sense of by, denoting the agent? A few of the best commentators, both ancient and modern, take the former view, and refer zaga πατρὸς to doar. The com- mon usage of this preposition is in favor of this interpretation.
There is not, perhaps, more than one single passage besides this in the N. T. (Acts 22: 30, where, indeed, some copies read ὑπο), in which παρα introduces the agent. On the other hand, the large majority of commentators adopt the latter view, which, as it yields a sense much more consistent with the context, should, I think, be adopted, especially since this usage of the preposition is frequent in the Attic writers.
ε The repetition of the preposition here is a mere matter of taste. I think it makes the expression a little stronger, and it can certainly do no injury.
τ Vulg., W., C., R., Erasm., Lus., Schott, Van Ess, De W., all translate wagrveee by the pres. Many translate xexoaye by the pres. ; others by the imperf. The latter appears to me un- faithful to the Orig. The Evang. is not speaking of a specific testimony, delivered at some past time, but of the daily minis- trations of John, the burden of which was, to prepare the way for the coming of one greater than himself. Therefore, he says. “John testifieth (Hist. Pres. habitually), and hath eried (Perf. continually), saying, &e.” All this is, I think, included in the Orig., and should, if practicable, be exhibited in the translation.—See Gen. Obs. 4.
ff See N. pp, v. 30, below.
δ Vulg., Germ., Fr. 0.-S., It., Dt., Camp., Kenr., Penn, Beza, Trem., Van Ess, Lus., Wesl., Dodd., and others.—The verb etm, when followed by the thing said, in the form of a quotation, is usually rendered, say, in the E. V. This is, at least, more in accordance with the usages of our language at the present day than speak. Very generally, indeed, I would translate this word, to say.
b E. V., Acts 7: 40. 1 Cor. 13: 1. 2 Cor. 5: 17; 12: 11. Gal. 4: 16. Heb.5: 12. James 2: 11. Vulg., W., R., Dt., Germ.—Interpreters are not agreed, as to whether the idea of preference, which is prominent in the E. Y., is m this verse at all. While I admit that it is there, 1 do not admit that it is expressed verbally, but only by implication. Surely, eumeo- σϑὲν does not necessarily convey the idea of superiority; for John actually says (ch. 3: 28), “1 have been sent (ez. exec- vov) before him (Christ).” I understand the idea to be, ‘‘ He that cometh after me, in the order of time, in commencing his public ministry, is now become before me, or superior to me in wisdom and reputation, and in the evident importance of his mission: and no wonder, because he was before me, that is, he existed before I was born.” ‘Two points I would insist upon:
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN.
CHAP. I.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
16 And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
ἐξηγήσατο.
GREEK TEXT.
16 Kai ἐκ rod πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος.
17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ ᾿]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώ- ποτε: ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος
REVISED VERSION.
16 jAnd out of his fullness we all ‘received, and grace 'above grace.
17 ‘Because the law was given =through Moses: *the grace, and the truth, came through Jesus Christ.
18 No vone hath rever seen God: the only begotten Son, who awas in the bosom of the Father, he «made him known.
) Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Penn, De W., Kuin., and many others, prefer to zae the more ancient reading, ὅτε. I would recommend that this reading be adopted, and that the verse read, “ Because, of his fullness, &e.;” and that this note be appended to the revised Version.—Some copies read, And of his fullness, &e.
k See Gen. Obs. 4.—The change of tense requires a change of the order of the words, all and we.
1 Van Ess, All., Goss., (Gnade tiber Gnade); Fr. 0.,-G.. (grace sur grace) ;-Penn. Viger, N. 50. Hoogev., p. 517, as quoted, with approbation, by Penn, iz loco.—Gill, Scott.—The best commentators are agreed that this expression signifies properly the same as the corresponding Hebrew, 7pm >2 ΠΌΤ, I prefer this rendering, not only because it is sustained by good authorities, but because it yields an apposite sense, which can hardly be said of the expression, grace for grace.
™ Moses and Christ are viewed, in this passage, not as the authors of their respective dispensations, but as the media through whom they were published to the world. For this rea- son, I prefer here to render dea, through, which marks the in- strumental, while by indicates more properly the efficient cause. —Latin Verss. (per); Germ., De W., Van Ess, (durch) ;-Penn.
» There certainly is an intimate connection between this verse and the 14th. Between this and the preceding verse, there is a still closer connection. Therefore, the grace and the truth, here spoken of, are the same that had been brought to view before. Hence the art. is properly translated. It is not grace and truth, in the abstract, but the grace and the truth, before spoken of, that came through Jesus Christ.— T separate the words, and the truth, from the rest of the sen- tence, by commas, not because this makes any material change in the sense, but because these words were, I apprehend, par- enthetical, or, at least, subordinate, in the mind of the Evang. at the time of writing. The verb, ἐγένετο, is in the singular, and cannot, as the sentence is collocated, have two subjects of the feminine gender, unless we suppose a needless violation
1. That yeyovey is to be taken in the sense of become, and rendered literally by the perf. 2. That all ideas of order, time, and preference are to be sought, not in the words of the passage, considered by themselves, but in the connection.
of the rules of grammar, which ought not to be admitted, while the sentence is susceptible of any other reasonable ex- planation. Two nominatives may be followed by a verb in the singular, when the latter of them is viewed as subordinate to the other, or is introduced by way of parenthesis. See Kiihn. § 242. Rem. 2. In this case I would explain the apparent dif- ficulty thus: The Evang., having written ἡ yages, was suddenly reminded of the αληϑεία which he had mentioned in connec- tion with yagzs, in v. 14, and of the propriety of here stating the source whence it also emanated: since, therefore, both have the same source, he adds zae ἡ αληϑεία, but not till after the sentence had assumed, in his mind, the outlines of its grammat- ical form, so that when he came to the verb, the principal word in the sentence, falling back upon his original design, which was, to account for the χαρὲς avte yageros of the preceding verse, he used the singular form, as though χαρὲς had been the only subject named. In other words, this phrase, καὶ ἡ adj deca, was an after-thought, uttered in the proper place, as suggested to the mind of the Eyang., and then dropped, the rest of the sentence retaining its originally intended shape.
° See Gen. Obs. 6.
p K. V. generally. I would always, when practicable, so render πώποτε.
4 For the change of which is to who was, in this clause, see Gen. Obs. 6, and ch. 3 : 13, N. a.
aa “made him known;” ἐξηγήσατο. (Dep. mid.). Scarlett, Thomson (N. Test.), Norton, Campbell. De Wette, “hat es verkiindiget” (es, neut. τ). Iberian, “él [mismo lo] ha dado 4 conocer.” Heb. N. Test. sspsqin. Kuineel: “Is solus nobis patefecit, nempe τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Deum, ejus consilia voluntatem.” Rob. (Lex., in verbo): “ Specially of a teacher, to declare, to make known; cum accus. τὸν Θεόν, Jno. 1:18. Comp. Matt. 11:27.” Alford: “The object to be supplied after the verb is most likely αὐτόν, i. 6., τὸν Θεὸν. De Wette thinks this too definite, and supplies ‘that which he has seen,’ as in chap. 3 : 11."—(Second Reviser.)
‘1. G., R., Penn, Kenr.—Whenever ὅτε is = because, I prefer so to render it, in order to distinguish in the translation between this word and yag, which is generally rendered for and which, for a similar reason, I would neyer render because.
6 THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. I.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to|> ask him, Who art thou?
20 And he confessed, and de- nied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, Iam not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that
* See N. j, v. 7, above. * See Gen. Obs. 5.
GREEK TEXT. o ε 19 Kai αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία n> a / τοῦ Iwavvov, ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν οἱ ᾿]ουδαῖοι ἐξ ἡ ]εροσολύμων i ἱερεῖς καὶ Aeviras, i ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐ- τὸν, Σὺ τίς εἶ; / 20 Καὶ ὡμολόγησε, καὶ οὐκ 5 ΄ἷ Aine. / “ ἠρνήσατο: καὶ ὡμολόγησεν, Ort » Seip AEN ε 7 οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστος.
21 Καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν, Ti
οὖν; ᾿Πλίας εἶ σύ; Καὶ λέγει, Οὐκ εἰμί. “O προφήτης εἶ σύ; Kai ἀπεκρίθη, Ov.
22. Kirov οὖν αὐτῷ, Tis εἶ; ἵνα ἀπόκρισιν δῶμεν τοῖς πέμψα- σιν ἡμᾶς" τί λέγεις περὶ σεαυτοῦ;
Yj \ Ν a 3° Edn, Εγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος 3 Ug tated / > / Ν « ἊΝ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, Hvdvvare τὴν ὁδὸν \ 3 ε ᾿ Κυρίου: καθὼς εἶπεν ᾿Ησαΐας ὁ προφητης. ante Misses 24 Kai οἱ ἀπεσταλμένοι ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων" 95 Ν » ΄ 3 ΕΝ, \ 25 Kal ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν, καὶ 5 > lal Tai 3 B Ce > εἶπον αὐτῷ, Ti οὖν βαπτίζεις, εἰ
the adyerb, then (rote), = at that time.
REVISED VERSION.
19 And this is the ‘testimony of John, when the Jews sent sfrom Jerusalem Priests and Le- vites, ‘that they might ask him, Who art rHou?
20 And he confessed and de- nied not; “yea, he confessed, I am not the Christ.
21 And they asked him, What then? Art tHov ‘Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art rHou “the Prophet? And he answer- ed, No.
2 They said to him, =there- fore, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to »*those who sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23 He said, I [am] a voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said ‘Isaiah the prophet.
24 And sthose who zhad been sent were of the Pharisees.
25 And they asked him, and said to him, Why, then, dost thou ‘immerse, if rHou art not
For this reason, I
t See N. k, v. 7, above.
mW. Ὁ» Ὁ Ri ὙΠῸ, Hrasm., Trem, Germ., ‘De W-, Lus., all have and, instead of but. Certainly, it is compara- tively seldom that xae has a disjunctive sense; and I see no real necessity for 50 understanding it here. I prefer yea to and, because it makes a better sentence, while it means about the same thing. I would render καὶ, yea, at any time when the sense will allow it, and ewphony may require it.
y I haye adopted, in the main, the rules obseryed by the Amer. Bible Soc. in their Revision of the E. V., in regard to the spelling of those proper names that occur in both the Old Test. and the New.
vw Fr, 0.,-S., Dt., It., R., Kenr., Penn, Van Ess, De W., Wesl.—They doubtless had their eyes on the Prophet spoken of by Moses, Deut. 18: 15.—W., T., Germ., Dodd., and others, vender indefinitely, a prophet ; but this certainly falls far short of expressing the sense of the Orig.
x Vulg., W., R., It., Dodd., Beza, Erasm., Schott, Kenr.— It is often difficult, especially in declarative sentences, to dis- tinguish between the conjunction, chen (ov), = therefore, and
prefer always to render οὐ», therefore, unless when the con- nection is such as to remoye all ambiguity, as is usually the case in interrogative and hypothetical clauses.
y See Gen. Obs. 6.
7 See Gen. Obs. 4.—Vulg., Cast., Fr. O.—-S.-M., Erasm., Schott, Beza, Trem., Lus.—The Orig. is in the perf. or plup. form.
Ὁ It is, I believe, very generally admitted by lexicographers, that ParreSew, as well in classical Greek as in the Septuagint, up to the days of John the Baptist, always signifies, to dip, immerse, or plunge, or, at least, that this is its literal mean- ing. Some, however, (as Rob., Parkh., &e.) contend that in the N. T. it has sometimes a different meaning. After a care- ful examination of all the passages in which this word and its cognates occur, I see no good reason for assigning to it any new meaning. I have also given some attention to the argu- ments of the advocates of the contrary opinion ; but I confess I am unable to feel their force. There are but two of these arguments that I consider it necessary to notice.—1. This rite, it is said, was sometimes administered under circumstances rendering it highly improbable that water could be obtained
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. I.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
GREEK TEXT.
REVISED VERSION.
Christ. nor Elias, neither that σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς, ovre‘HXias,|*the Christ, nor «Elijah, ‘nor
prophet ?
ΕΣ « / οὔτε ὁ προφητης ;
athe Prophet?
© See N. 0, vy. 8, above. ce See N. vy, ν. 21, above.
a R., Newe., Dodd., Camp., Kenr.—See Gen. Obs. 6. ddsSee Ν wy; v. 21, above.
in sufficient quantities for immersion. The cases cited are those of the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2: 41, of the Philippian jailer, Acts 16: 33, of Saul of Tarsus, Acts 9: 18, &e, Now it happens in this case, as fre- quently in others, that what seems to some minds highly tn- probable, has to others an appearance of very great probability. What, I would ask, is more probable, than that, in an age of luxury and great wealth, in a country visited with abundant rains, (even in those localities that did not abound in springs of water,) and in a climate where habitual bathing of the whole body was regarded by all classes as a necessary means of pre- serying health, there should be many pools, or reseryoirs of water—baths, both public and private, where immersion could be conyeniently performed? To suppose that the believers re- ferred to could not haye been immersed, would be to suppose that they could not haye bathed themselves if they wished it, which supposition is, to my mind, one of the most improbable of all improbable things. Indeed, in the case of the jailer, we haye incidental evidence that he had a bath of his own; for he took Paul and Silas, immediately before his own immersion, “and bathed (ελουσεν, see Rob. and other lexicographers, who agree that Aovew is spoken of bathing the whole body) them from the stripes.” (Acts 16; 33.)—2. It is alleged, that the phrase, BarriSew ev mvevuate aye, ke. (y. 33, below, Matt. 3:11. Mark 1:8. Luke 3:16. Acts 1:5) indicates something different from immersion, from which it is argued, that βαπ- τιζειν ev ddate May mean something different from immersion in water.—To this I reply: 1) The propriety of inferring the literal meaning of any word from its metaphorical use, espe- cially of a word which has been so frequently and uniformly employed in a literal sense as this, is, 1 apprehend, a new dis- coyery in the science of lexicography.—2) From what little we know of the manner of the Spirit’s operations, (even sup- posing, for the sake of argument, that the Holy Spirit of God is spoken of in these passages. See, however, N. ἢ, ch. 7: 39.) it is as natural to suppose that believers are immersed in the Spirit, as that they are sprinkled, or affused with the Spirit. This Holy Spirit surrounds, overwhelms, and thoroughly per- yades the whole believer, which fact agrees, at least, as well to the idea of immersion as to any other. Nor is it any valid objection to this, that the Spirit is sometimes said to be shed Jorth, or poured out upon believers ; for this idea is perfectly consistent with that of a consequent immersion. Every rite should be performed in its natural and appropriate manner. Immersion in the Spirit is naturally and appropriately per- formed by pouring out that Spirit on the subject, in such abundance, however, that the subject may be thoroughly over- whelmed in its influences ; while, on the other hand, immersion in water is naturally and appropriately performed by dipping
the subject in the water, so as to overwhelm him. The dif- ference between the two is merely in the mode, or manner, while immersion is the common result obtained, as is indicated in the literal import of the yerb employed, in both cases, to represent the action. In view of the above facts and argu- ments, I can not hesitate in deciding, that @arrfecy in the N. T. signifies uniformly, and only, to dip, immerse, or plunge.— Is, then, baptize a proper English word to translate βαπτεζω 7 We have just seen what is the meaning of the latter. Now what is the meaning of the former? A comparatively small number of those speaking the English language say, that baptize = immerse; another, and larger portion say, that baptize = sprinkle; another portion say, that baptize = pour ; while another portion (and these, perhaps, form the large majority) say, that baptize immerse, sprinkle, or pour, indifferently. Thus, βαπτεζειν means just to immerse, and nothing else, while baptize is quite ambiguous, and may be made to suit the taste, or fancy of any one who prefers to walk in the light of his own eyes. I entered upon this work of revision with strong prejudices against the change of the word baptize, or of any of its derivatives; but, upon more mature reflection, and after a careful examination of the rule, which says, that the translation must be made “ with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness,” I became conyinced that some change is imperatively demanded. I have, therefore, uni- formly rejected baptize and its derivatives, and substituted immerse, immersion, &e., as the best terms that I can find to convey the sense of the Orig. I would add, that the above, though it would seem to fayor the practice of but a small por- tion of the professed followers of Christ, comparatively, is by no means a one-sided, or sectarian view of this subject. All writers, of any note, of all schools, agree that immerse is the primary meaning of βαπτεζω. A multitude of those whose practice was opposed to immersion, haye given it as their be- lief, that immersion was practised by John the Baptist, the Apostles of Christ, and the primitive Christians. I will simply give a list of the names of some of those last mentioned, com- piled from Booth’s “ Pedobaptism Examined,” referring the reader for particulars, and copious quotations, to that elaborate work.—Witsius, L’Enfant, Anonymus, Gurtlerus, Bp. Dayen- ant, Pictetus, Dr. R. Newton, Piscator, Abp. Secker, Mastricht, Calvin, Spanhemius, Vitringa, Bp. Patrick, Marloratus, Stack- house, Burkitt, J. Wesley, Conf. of Helvetia, Zanchius, Hoorn- beekius, Daille, Salmasius, Bower, Poole’s Continuators, Ra- vanellus, Marckius, Mosheim, Bp. Taylor, Clignetus, Doutrin, D. Martin, Dr. Priestley, Burmannus, J. Trapp, Grotius, Ca- stalio and Camerarius, Beza, Bingham, Buddeus, Heidanus, Twells, Menochius and Estius, Lampe, Limborch, Sir T. Ridley, J. Claude, H. Altingius, Hospinianus, Curcellzeus, Wolfius, G.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. I.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
26 John answered them, say- ing, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not:
27 He it is, who coming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
δήματος. 28 Ταῦτα ἐν
΄, a VETO πέραν TOU
28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
* The use of the preposition ev, in connection with Saz- ate, is, of itself, pretty good evidence that this verb in the N. T. signifies 10. immerse, as it does in classical Greek: for, though it may be true that in some rare cases ev introduces the instrument, or means, and though Luke once (Luke 3: 16) uses in connection with this yerb the simple dative of the instrument ὕδατι, (where, however, several MSS., Cant. Vat. 360. Vind. Lamb. 31, according to Mill and Birch, have ev ὕδατι,) yet the expression, ev τῷ Iogdarn, Matt. 3: 6, can by no reasonable effort of criticism be made to mean with, or by means of the Jordan, but must be understood, as it literally reads, in the Jordan. I suppose, therefore, there is no good reason for departing from the usual and proper rendering of ev, either here or elsewhere, when it occurs in connection with this rite—Vulg., W., R., Camp.
ΓΟ In midst of you is more literal than among you.—Newc., (amidst you) ; W. (in the myddel of you) ; R. (in the middes of you), Vulg., Erasm., (medius ... vestrum), Germ., Van Ess, De W. (mitten unter euch); Fr. 8. (au milieu de vous).
® Griesb. and Tisch., with some of the most ancient and reli- able MSS., omit αὐτὸς ἐστιν, (He it is) and ὃς euzgoater μου γεγονεν, (who is become before me.) Lachm. encloses these same words in brackets. These omissions are justified by De W., Meyer, Newe., and Penn,—Internal evidence is, I think, against the authenticity of αὐτὸς sor. I know of no other passage in which αὐτὸς is used in the sense of οὗτος. Upon the whole, I think, it would be well to adopt the reading of the editors above mentioned, and translate thus: “ He that cometh after me, of whose.”&e., with this note in the margin: Accord-
GREEK TEXT.
26 ᾿Απεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ϊωάν- vns λέγων, ᾿Εγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι" μέσος δὲ ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν, ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε.
27 αὐτός ἐστιν 0 ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου ye yovev οὗ ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω αὐτοῦ τὸν ἱμάντα τοῦ ὑπο-
>
]ορδάνου, ὅπου 3 > ΄
ἦν ᾿Ιωάννης βαπτίζων.
—
REVISED VERSION.
_ 26 John answered them, say- ing, I ‘immerse ‘in water: but ‘in the midst of you standeth one whom ve know not.
27 ®He it is that "cometh after me, "who is ‘become before me, ithe string of whose ‘sandal I am not worthy 'to loose.
28 These things were done in "Bethabara beyond ethe Jordan, where John was "immersing.
“Βηθαβαρᾷ ἐγέ-:
ing to some copies, He it zs that cometh after me, who is become
before me, etc.
h There is evidently a want of literal accuracy in the Τὸ. V. where ὃς it put out of its proper place in the sentence.
ι See N. h, v. 15, above.
} Latchet is not sufficiently plain and definite. understood by every one.
String will be
k Newe.—It is well known, that the covering for the foot worn in ancient times in Palestine, was not properly a shoe, in the modern sense of the term, but a sandal, bound on to the sole of the foot by a string, or thong of leather. In regard to the form of the possessive case, in which I follow Newc., Penn, and Kenr., I adopt it here, and frequently elsewhere, because I consider it more elegant than the other.
1 Camp., Penn, Kenr—Unloose is seldom used at the present day.
= Origen, who seems to haye overlooked the fact that περαν tov Iogdavov was added, to distinguish this Bethany from the other, well known, near Jerusalem, was probably the author of the reading Βηϑαβαρᾳ, which has been adopted into the Text. Rec., and is found in many modern Verss. Modern editors almost unanimously reject it, and substitute for it Brydon, which is found in almost all the best copies. I would adopt this reading, and translate, in Bethany, and insert the follow- ing note in the margin: A few copies have Bethabara.
° See Gen. Obs. 1—The Jordan, is strictly in accordance with the modern usus loquendi.
J. Vossius, Sir P. King, Abp. Tillotson, Frid. Spanhemius, Bp. Pearce, Abp. Usher, Momma, Theod. Haszeus, Baxter, Bp. Burnet, Braunius, De Courcy, Weemse, T. Wilson, Assembly of Divines, J. Mede, Dr. Cave, Dr. Towerson, Bossuet, Chambers, G. Whitefield, Doddridge, Jurieu, Le Clerc, Venema, Altman- nus, Magdeb. Centuriators, Dr. Hammond, Chamierus, Bp. Fell, Dutch Annotators, Bp. Stillingfleet, H. Hulsius, Deylingius, Heideggerus, Εἰ. Leigh, Hardy, Locke, Wetstenius, Roell, Wal- ker, Dr. Whitby, Bp. Nicholson, Quenstedius. Dr.Wall.—To this
list I would add the names of George Campbell and Macknight. __LLet it be borne in mind that none of the authors above quoted practised immersion.—See also, for a complete discussion of this subject, Rev. Ὁ. Β. Judd’s “Baptism in Plain English,” “Tracts for the Times,” pp. 88-161, and “Remains of Willard Judd,” pp. 230-236.
» W., Penn, Dodd., Wesl.—There is certainly no propriety, at this late hour, in retaining the subjunctive here-—See Gen. Obs. 4.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me; for he} was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, say- ing, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
GREEK TEXT.
29 Ti ἐπαύριον βλέπει ὁ ᾽Ϊ]ω- ἄννης τὸν ᾿]ησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ λέγει, "Ide ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου.
30 οὗτός ἐστι περὶ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον, ᾿Οπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ, ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.
31 κἀγὼ οὐκ ἤδειν αὐτόν: GAN ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ, διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι βαπτίζων.
32 Καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν ᾿Ϊωάννὴς λέγων, Ὅτι τεθέαμαι τὸ Πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.
88 κἀγὼ οὐκ noe αὐτόν: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐ ἐν ὕδατι, ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν, Lid’ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ Π]νεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον
cee! - ἴδ ef > € / ΕἾ QUTOV, OUTOS ἐστιν ὁ Barri |
Cov ἐν Πνεύματι “Ayia.
REVISED VERSION.
29 The next day »John seeth Jesus coming to him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!
30 vrHe it is of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is abecome before me; "because he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but, that he might be :manifested to Israel, because of this I came “immersing ‘in ‘the water.
32 And John “testified, saying, I vhave seen the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to ‘immerse ‘in water, *he said to me, Upon ywhomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit »coming down and ‘abid- ing upon him, *He it is that *im- merseth ‘in ‘the Holy Spirit.
P Griesb., Scholtz, Lachm., Tisch., and Theile, reject ὃ Jaavyns. It is, I apprehend, an I would leave it out, and translate, he seeth According to some copies,
Knapp and Hahn put it in brackets. ttalic insertion. Jesus, &c., and insert in the margin :
~ IT have changed
ἀναβαίνω, in several places. the former, and go, or come up, for the latter.—1. Because these are the more usual renderings of these words, in the E.
the translation of καταβαένω, as also of I prefer go, or come down, for
John sees, ἕο.
pp See N. a, y. 33, below.—By adopting this rendering of οὗτος I avoid the supply of the personal pronoun, otherwise necessary.
« See N. ἢ, v. 15, above.
τ See N, i, v. 15, above.
* For the sake of uniformity, I would recommend that ga- veoosty be rendered, in all cases, to manifest.—E. V., ch. 17: 6. Mark. 4: 22. Rom. 3: 21. Titus, 1: 3. 1John 1: 2; 3:5, 8; 4: 9.—Wesl.
t Fr. S.—The Orig. has the art. The probability is, that the Eyang. uses the art. because John accompanied the lan- guage quoted with some significant sign, calling attention to the stream, or pool of water in which he had just been immers- ing the people; q. ἃ. in that water, pointing to it with the finger, while speaking. At all events, we may be sure that the art. was used with design, and that the meaning of the passage is not perfectly presentedif we disregard it in the translation. —See Gen. Obs. 1.
« See N. j, v. 7, above.
τ See Gen. Obs. 4.
V.—2. Because I regard the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic forms of expression as, in general, more pure and forcible than the for- eign importations of a later age.—W., Newc., Kenr.
* R., Dt., Dodd., Wesl., Kenr.—Vulg. (ille) ; Cast. (is).—See Gen. Obs. 3.
y E.Y., Matth. 26: 48. Camp.—I think it is evident that this rendering is necessary, in order to preserye the force of the\ay of the Orig.
* I would translate weve, to abide, in all cases, (as it is in y. 32, and generally elsewhere, in the E. V.) except in ch. 19: 31.
* This rendering makes good sense, and is perfectly literal. —See N. ¢, v. 2, above.
> See N. a, vy. 25, above.
¢ See N. e, v. 26, above.
4 See N. ἢ, ch. 7: 39.—I would greatly prefer to render these words literally, Holy Spirit, without the article. I do not consider the zvevua ἅγιον here spoken of to be the personal spirit, contemplated as such, but, simply, divine essence, abstracted, in the mind of the writer, from all ideas of personal attributes or relations.
LO
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
34 And I saw and bare record, that this is the Son of God.
35 Again the next day after, John stood, and two of his dis- ciples ;
36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him,
GREEK TEXT.
34 κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρ-
τύρηκα ὅτι οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. ν
35 TH ἐπαύριον πάλιν εἱστή- κει ὁ Imavyns, καὶ ἐκ τῶν μαθη- τῶν αὐτοῦ δύο.
80 καὶ ἐμβλέψας τῷ ᾿]ησοῦ περιπατοῦντι, λέγει, de ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ.
37 Kai ἤκουσαν αὐτοῦ οἱ δύο μαθηταὶ λαλοῦντος, καὶ ἠκολού- θησαν τῴ ᾿]ησοῦ.
88 στραφεὶς δὲ ὁ ᾿]ησοῦς, καὶ θεασάμενος αὐτοὺς ἀκολουθοῦν- τας, λέγει αὐτοῖς,
89 Ti ζητεῖτε; Οἱ δὲ εἶπον αὐτῷ “Ραββὲ, (ὃ λέγεται ἑρμη- νευόμενον, Ζιδάσκαλε,) ποῦ μέ- νεις ;
40 Δέγει αὐτοῖς, "Ερχεσθε καὶ ἴδετε. Η͂λθον καὶ εἶδον ποῦ μένει: καὶ Tap αὐτῷ ἔμειναν τὴν ἡμέραν ἐκείνην: wpa δὲ ἢν ὡς δεκάτη.
41 Ἦν ᾿Ανδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς
Σίμωνος “Πέτρου, εἷς ἐκ τῶν δύο
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. I.
REVISED VERSION.
34 And 1 ‘have seen and ¢ ‘testified, that this is the Son of God.
35 The next day “again John *was standing, and two of his dis- ciples ;
36 And looking upon Jesus ‘walking, he saith, Behold the Lamb of Ged!
37 And the two disciples heard him ‘speaking, and followed Jesus.
38 JAnd Jesus, ‘turning, and iseeing them following, saith to them, What seek ye? /And they said to him, Rabbi, (which, *in- terpreted, ‘means, ™Teacher,) where "abidest thou?
39 He saith to them, Come and see. They came, and saw - where he sabode, and abode with him that day. *Now it was about the tenth hour.
40 rAndrew, the sbrother of Simon Peter, was one of the two
© See Gen. Obs. 4.—Alf. (have seen and borne testimony) ;
1 T understand deyw here, and in ch. 20: 16 = mean, or
Blo. (have borne, and do bear witness); Dodd., (have testified) ; Penn. (have borne testimony).
f See N. j, v. 7, above.
® I leave out after, because it is not necessary, and is want- ing in the E. V. of y. 29, in precisely the same circumstances. I change the position of again, according to the Orig.
4 Newe., Wesl., Dodd., Penn.—See Gen. Obs. 4.
* See Gen. Obs. 4.
} I see no good reason why de should, in this place, be trans- lated then. I prefer the uniform rendering of the more ancient Verss., W., T., C., G., R.,—as also of Penn., Wesl., Dodd., and Kenr.—Nor is there any thing to prevent its translation in the next sentence,
* T leaye out the word being, as an unnecessary supply, ΄
signify. Not only is the passive, λέγεται, so used, but, accord- ing to Passow, the active is also sometimes so employed.— Newe., Penn, (signifieth) ; Port. (quer dizer) ; It. (vuol dire).
™ The δεδασκαλος was not necessarily a master, or one em- ployed in the administration of government, but a teacher, or instructor.—Newe. Marg.—Van Ess (Lehrer).
» See N. z, v. 33, above.
4 The δὲ of the Text. Rec., rendered for, is of so slight authority that it is, I believe, now universally rejected.—I would, therefore, leaye out now.
P Without any injury to the literary character of the trans- lation, I have given this verse more in accordance with the Orig. If literal accuracy is of importance, this change is not altogether in yain.
4 J have changed this phrase, in order to bring out the art. which is not clearly translated in the E.V. I think it proba- ble that Andrew was Simon’s only brother.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. I.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
was Andrew, Simon Peter’s
brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias ; which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus.
the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas ; which is, by in- terpretation, a stone.
43 The day following Jesus
would go forth into Galilee, and|’
findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
44 Now Philip was of Beth- saida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and said unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write,
* The sense of from, or of, is almost παρα.
And when Jesus beheld |’ him, he said, Thou art Simon, |>
GREEK TEXT.
“ » ’ὔ δ 4 Δ τῶν ἀκουσάντων παρὰ Iwavvov, ; Ξ καὶ ἀκολουθησάντων αὐτῷ. 42 εὑρίσκει οὗτος πρῶτος τὸν Ν Ν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἴδιον Σίμωνα, καὶ Δ ’ o ce / Ν λέγει αὐτῷ, Κύρηκαμεν τὸν Meo- “ / σίαν, (0 ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον, / ὁ Χριστός") .«ν TLS ἈΝ \ 48 Kal ἡγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τον “-“ » / \ » Ay ue Inoovv. — ἐμβλέψας δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ a Bis ie ]ησοῦς εἶπε, Xv εἰ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς > cal δὰ ΄ “ Aare Tova: σὺ κληθήσῃ «Κηφᾶς: ὃ ἐρ- μηνεύεται ]Π]έτρος. > >? / > / ε 44 Ty ἐπαύριον ἠθέλησεν ὃ a Las » ]ησοῦς ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Tad
By rendering literally, from John, I avoid at once the
Aaiay: καὶ εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον, Kai λέγει αὐτῷ, ᾿Α κολούθει μοι.
45 ἮΝν δὲ ὃ Φίλιππος ἀπὸ Βηθσαϊδὰ, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ᾿Αν- δρέου καὶ Π]έτρου.
40 ὐρίσκει Φίλιππος τὸν “Ναθαναὴλ, καὶ λέγει, αὐτῷ, “Ov ἔγραψε Μωσῆς ἐν TO νόμῳ καὶ οἱ προφῆται, εὑρήκαμεν, ᾿Ϊ]ησοῦν
11
REVISED VERSION.
who heard ‘from John, and fol- lowed him.
41 He first findeth his own brother, Simon, and saith to him, We have found the *Mes- siah (which is ‘interpreted, ‘The ‘Anointed).
42 And he brought him to Je- sus. And Jesus, ‘looking upon him, said, TuHovu art Simon, the
| son of Jonas:rHovu shalt be called
Cephas (which is ‘interpreted, A Stone).
43 The next day «Jesus ¥wish- ed to go ‘out into Galilee; and he findeth Philip, and saith to him, Follow me.
44 Now Philip was of Beth- saida, *of the city of Andrew and Peter.
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him, We have found him of whom 'wrote Moses, (in the law,) and the Prophets, Je-
the universal sense of
place it after αὐτῷ.
* Scholtz, Lach., Tisch., Griesb., and Knapp, reject this 6 Inaovs of the Text. Rec. The others reject it altogether.
The first three mentioned, howeyer, I would
supply of the E. V., and the ambiguity of W. and R., who render, of John.—Vulg., Germ., Dt., Port., It., Van Ess, Kenr. * See N. v, v. 21, above.
t There is certainly as good reason for translating Xgcotos, in this verse, as there is for translating Zergos, in y. 42, below. The object of this parenthetical clause is, evidently, to explain the word ἥεσσιαν, in the vernacular, which certainly is not accomplished, when a Hebrew word is replaced by a Greek one.—Germ., De W., (der Gesalbte) ; Van Ess (den Gesalbten). — I take ἐστε ueteounvevouevoy to be a participial form of the present, = wetegunveverar.—The ὃ of the Text. Ree. is wanting in almost all MSS., of any authority, and is rejected by nearly all recent editors. I would, therefore, recommend that it be disregarded in the revision, and that The be left out be- fore Anointed.
« Kenr., Camp.—Newe. (looked on him); Dodd. (looking stedfastly upon him).—E. V., y. 36, above.
y R., Vulg., Germ., De W., Port.—It is scarcely necessary to say, that I have translated this verb literally.
w E.V., vv. 29, and 35.—I would so translate τῇ ἐπαύριον, in all cases.
reject it altogether, and translate, he wished to go out, &e., with this note in the margin.: According to some copies, Jesus wished, ke.
y It is often difficult for the English reader to determine whether will, or would, is the translation of ϑέλω, (εϑελω,) or whether it is merely a sign of the future tense, or subjunctive mood. To ayoid this ambiguity, I would always render dela, (unless, perhaps, in a few cases,) will, or be willing.—Newe. (purposed) ; Dodd. (determined) ; Wesl. (was minded); Camp. (resolved) ; Penn. (pleased).—Latin Verss. (volwit).
: To go out, is not so stiff and poetical as to go forth.
* Germ., Dt., DeW., Port., It., Trem.—As there is nothing to prevent the translation of ex, I prefer not to leaye it un- translated.
» Newe., Kenr., Penn.—As to the collocation, I have placed the verb before its subj., because it is so in the Greek, and, being in the singular, it properly belongs there. This order of words does no violence to the sense. I use the parenthesis, to prevent ambiguity.
12
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto
him, Can there any good thing’
come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael com- ing to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, 1 whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Je- sus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig- tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig- tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God as-
¢ W., T., C., G., R., Vulg., Germ., Dt., DeW., Van Ess, Kenr., all have (Jesus, the son of Joseph, of Nazareth). This, though
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
GREEK TEXT. N \ a \ Ν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ]ωσὴφ τὸν ἀπὸ Na- Caper. A ᾿ς \ 47 Kai εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ναθαναὴλ, \ / \ Ex Ναζαρὲτ δύναταί τι ἀγαθὸν εἰναι; Αέγει αὐτῷ Φίλιππος, "Epxov καὶ ἴδε. 48 Εἶδεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν Na- \ / θαναὴλ ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν,
Ν / ἂν » no > a καὶ λέγει περὶ αὐτοῦ, [be ἀληθῶς ᾿Ισραηλίτης, ἐν ᾧ δόλος οὐκ ἔστι.
49 Δέγει αὐτῷ Ναθαναὴλ, Πόθεν με γινώσκεις ; ᾿Απεκρίθη «, 9 cad Ni 3 > ΄“ Ν ὁ ᾿]Πησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Π|ρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι, ὄντα
Ν Ν “ 5.7 ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν, εἰδὸν σε.
Ν 50 ᾿Απεκρίθη “Ναθαναὴλ καὶ a \ 53 eX
λέγει αὐτῷ, “PaBBi, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς
= Ξ Ne ὅς \ = τοῦ Θεοῦ, σὺ εἰ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ 3 , LTopana.
51 ᾿Απεκρίθη _Tnoois καὶ εἰ- πεν αὐτῷ, “Ὅτι εἶπόν σοι, Εἰδόν σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς, πιστεύεις ; μείζω τούτων ὄψει.
τ a \
52 Kai λέγει. αὐτῷ, ᾿Α μὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑ ὑμῖν, ἀπ᾽ “ἄρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν. ἀνεῳγότα, καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας
eel
REVISED VERSION.
sus, the son of Joseph, ‘the one of Nazareth.
46 And Nathanael said to him, Can any “thing good ‘be ‘of Na- zareth ? Philip saith to him, Come, and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael com- ing to him, and saith of him, Be- hold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith to him, Whence knowest thou me? Je- sus answered, and said to him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig- tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered, and saith to him, *Rabbi, ruov art the Son of God; truov art the King of Israel !
50 Jesus answered, and saith to him, Because I said to thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these.
51 And he saith to him, Veri- ly, verily, I say to you, Here- after ye shall see *the heaven ‘opened, and the angels of God
doubt whether it is ever necessary so to translate it. eyents, no such necessity exists here.
At all To: be of Nazareth is
literal, is objectionable. —1. Because it leaves it doubtful, whether the father or the son is of Nazareth, while no such doubt rests on the Orig. 2. Because of Nazareth does not fully convey the sense of the τον of the Orig.—The best version of this clause that I have seen is that of Beza, (illum ex urbe Nazaretha) ; It. (che e da Nazaret).—The phrase, tov azo Ναζξαρετ, would seem to point to Jesus as a personage already well known to Philip, and, perhaps, to the neighborhood in general, as that Nazarene, who had begun to make a stir in the community.—Trem. (qui est Jeschua, filius Jauseph, qui est ex Natzareth). The foregoing translation would seem to im- ply that Joseph is “the one of Nazareth,” which is, indeed, true, and according to the reading (του azo Nag.) τ one of the Vat. MSS. 354, as quoted by Birch.
4 Any thing good is a more literal rendering of τε αγαϑον than any good thing.—Penn., R., (any good).
¢ The verb, ewaz, is yery rarely translated to come, and I
not exactly = to come out of Nazareth ; yet the former is un- doubtedly the exact meaning of the Orig.
f This change of preposition results naturally from the other change noticed above. See N. e, preceding.
® 1 do not translate Ῥαββε, because it has already been in- terpreted in y. 38. In this I suppose I follow the example of the Evang. who uses this instead of the equivalent Greek word,
διδασκαλος. I would, therefore, never translate ‘Page.
4 It is not always practicable to translate the art. before oveavos, in the singular. Here, however, no injury results from its translation, and I accordingly translate it, adhering to my general rule-—See Gen. Obs. 1.
i Newe., Penn, Wesl., Dodd.. Kenr., Berl. Bib., Van Ess Beng., Kist., and others.—This word is a perf. part., not an adjective.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
cending and descending upon the Son of man.
CHAP. 11.
Awnp the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the mar- riage.
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Wo- man, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do τί.
6 And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the
GREEK TEXT. Ἂς , bine Ν eX καὶ καταβαίνοντας ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν a , Tov ἀνθρώπου.
CHAP. 11.
> ae eta 5 , ΄
KAT τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ ya- » / ’ “ lal
μος ἐγένετο ἐν Kava τῆς Lari
Aalas: καὶ ἣν ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ ᾿]ησοῦ
ἐκεῖ. 2 ἐκλήθη δὲ καὶ ὁ ᾿]ησοῦς καὶ
i he ΔΠ]. he a
ξ 4 or
οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν γάμον. pan γάμ
3 καὶ ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου, λέ- γει ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ ᾿]ησοῦ πρὸς av- τὸν, Οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσι.
4 Λέγει αὑτῇ ὁ ᾿]Ιησοῦς, Ti ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ, γύναι; ὧρα μου.
5 Acye ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ τοῖς διακόνοις, Ὅ τι ὃν λέγῃ ὑμῖν, ποιήσατε.
6 °Hoayv δὲ ἐκεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι ἐξ κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν
A σ οὕπω Ἥκει ἢ
DUE 13
REVISED VERSION.
jgoing up and Jeoming down upon the Son of man.
CHAP. 11.
Anp the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the mar- riage.
3 And, «the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him, They have no wine.
4 Jesus saith to her, Woman,
«| what *hast rou to do with mr?
Mine hour is not yet come.
5 His mother saith to the servants, ‘Whatever he ‘may say to you, do.
6 ‘Now there were there six water-pots of stone, ‘standing
manner of the purifying of the
according to the purifying of the
i See N. w, v. 33, above.
« This form of expression, equivalent to the ablative absolute in Latin, is always concise, and often peculiarly forcible. W.., T., C., G., R., Vulg., Cast. (when the wine failed) ; Fr. O.,-S., Portug. (faltando o vinho); Italian (essendo venuto meno i vino).—It would be difficult to find a more objectionable translation of this phrase than that of the Ἐν
(le vin ayant manque) ;
> Erasmus translates τὸ ἥμιν καὶ aor; quid {ἰδὲ rei nobis- cum est? and it has been well remarked by Penn (Note to Matt. 8 : 29) “that σοι denotes the agent, ju (euor) the patient, in the supposed action.”—Newe. marg., Doddridge, Ken-
rick. 4 See Gen. Obs. 6.
6 W.—I use the subjunctive, because I consider it more accurate than the indicative. Rhemish Version, and others,
have shall say, which (being in reality, in this connection, a
weak form of the subjunctive) is preferable to the E. V.—See Gen. Obs. 4.
τ When the particle δὲ is used to connect two paragraphs the latter of which introduces new matter, it is often better to translate it now, than but, or and. Instances of this kind are of frequent occurrence in the E. V. (ch.1:44; 4:6; 11:1. Matt. 1:18; 11:2. 1 Tim. 4:1, etc). I have ventured to carry this rule a little farther than King James’ revisers, with, I hope, some advantage.—See Gen. Obs. 6.
® Kewwevae literally means, dying: but as the idiom of our language will not admit of this rendering here, standing is I have changed the collocation of words, according to the Greek, as xecwevae be- longs, not to the principal, but to the qualfying clause.—T.,
evidently the nearest approach to it.
[1C. Ge
» T can not agree with Blo., that “xaza here signifies propter, for the purpose of,’ which he admits to be a rare significa- tion; nor with Camp., who takes xara in the sense of es, for. Καϑαριίσμος is undoubtedly here taken in a legal and restricted sense, = law, or custom of purifying, as is abundantly evident
14
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants which
κλίνῳ.
from the connection, and need not be expressed in words. After the manner is a yery unusual translation of κατα, being found in the HK. V. in only two passages besides this (1 Cor. 15 : 32. Gal. 3:15), where, perhaps, it is the best rendering that could be given. Here the sense evidently does not require periphrasis— W. (after the cleansing); R. (according to the purification) — Vulg., Dt., Swed., Port., Berl. Bib., Beng., Stoltz, De W.
' Vulg., Erasm., Beza (capientes) ; Fr. O. (tenaient)—Swed.— See ch. 1 : 33, N. w.
} Were it actually certain that the werenrys was precisely equivalent to the Hebrew bath, it would, perhaps, be best to render it by this term, which occurs so frequently in the O. T. But, as there is some doubt of this, and as there is no measure in use among us that is exactly equivalent to this, I would recommend that the word be left untranslated; and though, as a general rule, I prefer to transfer from the Orig. Greek, yet in this case, for the sake of euphony, I would adopt the Latin form, metreta, and form the plural, as in English, by the addition of an s. As the quantity held by each water-pot is stated only approximatively, and as this word occurs nowhere else in the N. T., I would suggest, that, in order to secure the attention of the reader, the clause be made to read as follows: “holding two or three metretas [16 to 24 gallons] apiece.” I would also recommend that the following note appear in the margin. : The metreta was equal to about ezght gallons—Vulg., Erasmus.
k Some interpreters understand ava here to be = circiter, about, supposing that the six vessels together held about two or three metretas. I apprehend, however, that the double approximation, about two or three, is not in very good taste; and as the words admit quite as well of a different rendering, which is unobjectionable on the score of literary taste, I think
GREEK TEXT. Lal δ ὃ ͵7ὔ lal » Ν τῶν Lovdaiwr, χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ με- Ν ΄,ὔ ΩΝ cod τρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς. ΄σ > - Τ λέγει αὐτοῖς 0 ᾿]ησοῦς., Γε- Ν ε μίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος. Ν ἐγέμισαν αὐτὰς ἕως ἄνω. / rod 8 Kai λέγει αὐτοῖς, ᾿Α ντλή- a 4 a care viv, καὶ φέρετε τῷ ἀρχιτρι- ᾿΄ Kai ave year.
9 ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο ὃ ἀρχιτρί- κλινος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον, καὶ οὐκ ἤδει πόθεν ἐστίν" (οἱ δὲ
/ Uj ε / διάκονοι ἡδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες
REVISED VERSION.
Jews, ‘holding two or three ime- tretas ‘apiece.
7 Jesus saith to them, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And he saith to them, Draw out now, and bear to the gov- ernor of the feast. And they bore zt.
9 'And when the "governor of ἴω feast tasted the water, that was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants,
Kai
this latter rendering ought to be preferred. Besides, the difficul- ty which this interpretation is designed to obviate, is, perhaps, imaginary. Some think it incredible that so large a quantity of liquid as these six vessels must have contained, if each held 16 to 24 gallons, should be turned into wine, for the use of a nuptial party, especially through the miraculous power of one who could have had no sympathy with excessive drinking. Those who feel the weight of this objection would do well to observe: 1. That the wine made on this occasion was probably very slightly, if at all, intoxicating. That it was called good wime does not prove that it was a strong alcoholic drink, unless it can be shown that the governor of the feast was a man fond of stimulus, of which there is, I believe, no evi- dence.—2. That it is nowhere said, directly or indirectly, that any portion of this liquid was turned into wine, except that which was drawn out by the ministers, and borne to the governor of the feast. On the contrary, from v. 9, it is rendered even more than probable that the change from water to wine took place during the interval which elapsed from the time of drawing out to that of tasting. that what they drew out was water, and that what he tasted was wine, which had just been made out of water, or rather wine-made water (De W., “das weingewordene Wasser”). This view was entertained by Semler, who lived in an age when no man was likely to be guilty of fanaticism, in defending the principles of total abstinence.
For it is evident, from the narrative,
1 Dodd. (now); Dt. (nu); Germ., De Wette (aber); Vulg. (autem)—W., R., It., Port., Newc., Penn, Kenr.—See Gen. Obs. 6.
m Tn the change from governor to ruler, in the E. V. of this passage, we have a striking example of that excessive fondness for variety which seems to have been a ruling passion with King James’ revisers—Newe., Wesl.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. II.
15
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
drew the water knew,) the gov- ernor of the feast called the bride- groom,
10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mo- ther, and his brethren, and his
GREEK TEXT. ΄ Ν τὸ ὕδωρ") φωνεῖ τὸν νυμφίον ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος,
10 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Πᾶς av- fol Ν \ 53 θρωπος πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον n / τίθησι, καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσι, τότε Ν , Ν τὸν ἐλάσσω: σὺ τετήρηκας τὸν ‘ 3 2, καλὸν οἶνον ἕως ἄρτι. ΄ » ΄ \ > \ 11 7 αύτην ἐποίησε τὴν ἀρχὴν ΄ c > ~ ΄- τῶν σημείων ὁ ᾿]ησοῦς ev Kava
τῆς Ταλιλαίας, καὶ ἐφανέρωσε!
τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ" καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
12 ΜΕΤΑ τοῦτο κατέβη εἰς Καπερναοὺμ, αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ μήτηρ
Ν
- « > QA » -" αὐτοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ
REVISED VERSION.
who chad drawn the water, knew), the governor of the feast calleth the bridegroom,
10 And saith to him, Every man at first setteth 1down ‘the good wine, and when ‘they have drunk ‘freely, then "the worse : tHou hast kept the good wine “till now.
11 This beginning of ~the signs Jesus did in Cana of Ga- hlee, and manifested » his glory: and his disciples believed on him.
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, *himself, and his mother, and his «brothers, and
° As ηγτληκοτες is in the perfect, or pluperfect form, ( Alf.) I do not see why it should not be so translated. I have changed the place of new, with the Germ. and others, in accordance with the Orig.—Penn (had poured out).—R., Vulg., Cast., Port., Dt., Fr. O.-S.-M., Erasm., Beza, Lus., Schott, Kenr.
P Erasm., Beza, (primo loco); R., Wesl., Dodd., Van Ess, ( first).—Germ., DeW., Fr. 0.,-S.,—M., Penn, Kenr., Newce., It., Vulg., Cast., Trem.
3 Wesl., Dodd., (out); Newe. (on).—Down is, in this con- nection, less stiff, and more appropiate to the circumstances, than either forth, out, or on.
τ Dt., Port., It., Swed., De W., Berl. Bib., Beng., Stoltz, All., Kist., Goss., Dodd., Penn.
* The impersonal use of men is by no means so frequent, or elegant, as it once was.—Fr. Verss. (ov); Germ. (man); Dt. (men).—Dodd., Penn.
t Commentators generally admit, that this word does not necessarily imply intoxication. Parkh. gives, as its definition in this place, to drink freely, or to cheerfulness, but not to drunkenness ; and shows from the use of the word in the Sept., that “it admits of a good, or indifferent, as well as of a bad sense.”—Dodd. (plentifully) ; Newe. (largely).
" Tt. (il men buono).—Dt., Germ., De W., Cast., Port., Schott.
y As till fully supplies the place of until, (see Webster’s
Dictionary, im loco,) I would neyer use the latter, which is undoubtedly passing out of use.
~ The art. is, I think, quite necessary here, to convey the real sense of the Orig. This sign was not the beginning of signs, in an indefinite sense; for there had been many signs
and wonders performed before the adyent of the Savior: but it was the beginning of that long and splendid catalogue of signs, to which attention is directed by the art., and which forms, perhaps, the most satisfactory of all the outward eyvi- dences of Christianity. The conjecture put forth by Dodd. and others, that probably the Savior had already wrought many miracles in private, this being only the commencement of his public miracles, unsupported as it is by any historical data, and directly opposed to this plain assertion of the Evang. deserves only to be regarded as an unwarrantable and gratuit- ous assumption, well calculated to impair the confidence of the weak in the truth of the Evangelical History: for, (as Kenr. well observes.) “we know not whether he performed any [miracles] privately.’—Dt., Berl. Bib., Beng., Stoltz, It., All., Kist.
* As sign is the literal and proper rendering of onuecor, 1 would so translate it in all cases—Germ., De W., (Zeichen) ; Dt. (teeckenen) ; Vulg., Erasm., Beza, (signorwm).—W.
¥ The word forth is left out, as a supply altogether unne- cessary.—See Gen. Obs. 1.
* According to Robinson, and others, αὐτὸς in the nominative case, is neyer used as a personal pronoun, but always reflex- ively = ipse. I haye invariably followed this rule, in this revision.
* According to modern usage, a man’s brothers are those born of the same parent, or parents, while his brethren are the members of the same society, or social circle. I am disposed to adopt this rule, in modernizing the E.V. Indeed, according to this rule, his brothers were not, at that time, his brethren. See ch. 7; 5, and the note there, where also the question is considered, whether these brothers were actually the children of Joseph and Mary.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. II.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
disciples; and they continued there not many days.
13 And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money, sitting: ; καθημένους.
15 And when he had made ἃ scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables ; ἀνέστρεψε: 16 And said unto them that 16 καὶ τοῖς sold doves, Take these things hence: make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remem- bered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
γέ με.
GREEK TEXT.
, /
15 καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ ἐμ ΄΄ » / > a σχοινίων, πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ - , / oN ἱεροῦ, Ta TE πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς
/ a a Boas, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέ-
Ἃς / x
XEE TO κέρμα, καὶ Tas τραπέζας
πωλοῦσιν εἶπεν, "A pare ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν: μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου. 17 ᾿Εμνήσθησαν δὲ οἱ μαθη- ταὶ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι γεγραμμένον ἐστὶν, Ὃ ὥῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφα-
REVISED VERSION.
οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ" Kal ἐκεῖ ἔμειναν |his disciples; and *there they ov πολλὰς ἡμέρας.
18 Kat ἐγγὺς ἦν τὸ πάσχα τῶν ᾿ΖΠουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς ‘Le- ροσόλυμα ὁ ᾿ΪΠησοῦς.
14 καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας Boas καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς, καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς
abode not many days.
13 And the “Passover of the Jews was ‘near: and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14 And found in the temple ‘those ‘selling oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the smoney- changers sitting.
15 And, making a 'whip of small cords, he drove all out of the temple, ‘both the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the money of the *money-changers, and overthrew the tables;
Tas περιστερὰς 16 And to ‘those ‘selling the doves he said, Take these things hence: make not my Father’s
house a house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remem- bered that it Jhad been written, The zeal of thy house ‘did eat me up.
1 1
> This change of collocation is made in accordance with the Orig., to give greater emphasis to the adyerb.
© See ch. 1: 33, N. z.
Δ haye made this, and other similar changes, because I consider this form of the possessive more smooth and flowing than the other, especially when the noun is of the plural number. See Gen. Obs. 5.—W., R., Penn, Newe., Dodd., Wesl., Kenr.
¢ The E.V. presents a great variety in the translation of eyyvs, to which there is no corresponding variety of meaning. I think it may be rendered near’, in almost all cases, without injuring the style of the translation—W. (nigh).—Newe.
f See Gen. Obs. 4 and 6.—Schott, Beza, (venditores).— Vulg., Cast.
® T always prefer, if nothing preyents, to translate a single word by a single word. Hence, I prefer money-changers to changers of money. Changers (Camp.) is objectionable, on the ground that it is not sufficiently explicit.
» Whip is more readily understood than scourge, which, in modern language, conveys a very different idea. Some suppose that the ozowa were rushes, (ozotvos—= juncus,) strewed, as litter, on the floor of the temple. (Wesl.) But as this word is used generally for a rope, or cord, the material varying, no doubt, according to circumstances, I consider it better to re-
tain the common idea.—Camp., Dodd., Kenr.
1 Tam disposed, with Erasm.,Wesl., and Penn, to refer zray- τας exclusively to the animals, the foas καὶ προβατα of the preceding yerse, for the following reasons: 1. Because it is highly improbable that the Savior would use physical force, much less that he would use a whip, in expelling from the tem- ple reasonable beings, who seem not to haye made the least resistance,—2. Because if πάντας refers to τοὺς πωλουντας, it necessarily includes the sellers of doves, who, as we learn from the next verse, were not driven from the temple.—3, Because there is no valid grammatical objection to this interpretation. J7az- τὰς is masc., agreeing with βόας, as the more worthy gender, which is a case of very frequent occurrence, especially when all the objects spoken of are possessed of life.—I take, then, τὰ τε προβ. καὶ τοὺς Boas to be an explanatory clause, inserted afterwards, for the yery purpose of limiting this action of the Sayior to these two classes of animals.
) This is undoubtedly a participial form of the perfect, = ye- γραπται. Such forms are yery frequent in John’s writings.— See Gen. Obs. 4.
« It is almost universally conceded, (Blo.) that καταφάγεται, not xategaye, is the true reading here. I would recommend that this reading be adopted, and the phrase rendered, “is cat- ing me up;” and that this note appear in the margin.: A few copies have, did eat me up.
rHE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
18 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the tem-|
ple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disci- ples remembered that he had said this unto them: and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
23 Now when he was in Je- rusalem at the passover, in the feast-day, many believed in his name, when they saw the mira- cles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit
Tl. 17
GREEK TEXT.
᾽ 7, 5 an} 18 ᾿Απεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ ’Tov- a Ses sige , a δαῖοι καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ, Tt σημεῖον 7 ΙΒ cr “ - a ᾿δεικνύεις ἡμῖν, OTL ταῦτα ποιεῖς ;
19 ἀπεκρίθη δ᾽ Τησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Δύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν. | 20 δἶπον οὖν οἱ ᾿ΪΠουδαῖοι, “Τεσσαράκοντα καὶ ἐξ ἔτεσιν φκοδομήθη ὁ vaos οὗτος, καὶ σὺ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερεῖς αὐτὸν;
21 ᾿Εκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγε περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.
22. ὅτε οὖν ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τοῦτο ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς: καὶ ἐπίστευ- σαν τῇ γραφῇ; καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ᾧ εἶπεν ὁ ᾿]ησοῦς.
28. ὡς δὲ ἢν ἐν ]εροσολύμοις ἐν τῴπάσχα, ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ; πολλοὶ ἐπί- στευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, θεω- ροῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει.
24 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ᾿]ησοῦς οὐκ
REVISED VERSION.
18 The Jews, therefore, an- swered, and said to him, What sign showest thou to us, 'since thou doest these things ?
19 Jesus answered, and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 The Jews, therefore, said, Forty and six years was this tem- ple in building, and wilt ruov =yaise it up in three days?
21 But he spoke of the tem- ple of his body.
22 When, therefore, he was "raised from the dead, his disci- ples remembered that he said this »to them ; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus said.
23 Now when he was in Je- rusalem, at the Passover, sduring the feast, many believed on his name, seeing "his ‘signs which he was doing.
24 But Jesus thimself did not
“trust himself to them, von ac-
1 W., R., and most other Verss. have simply that. However, seeing that, or since, expresses the idea more clearly. The latter is preferable to the former, because it is a single word, and, therefore, more concise.—Newe.
™ Tt is hardly necessary to say that rear, in this connection, is obsolete.
» This word is passive in form. As Jesus is represented sometimes to haye been raised by the power of the Father, I see no impropriety in rendering literally here.
° Had said is such a rendering as this word will hardly ever bear. If ελεγον is to be regarded as an imperf., used to say would be the proper expression to conyey the meaning here. But I am satisfied that this word, if it must be regarded as an imperf. in form, is in reality an aorist in signification. I ad- mit that there are many passages in Which it may be taken as an imperf., but I can find no passage in which it is necessary so to understand it. On the other hand, there are seyeral passages, in which it must be taken aoristically.—See Mark. 5: 8, 30, 31. Luke 23: 43, and others, where the action predicated was momentary, and not repeated ; besides a multitude of pass- ages in which ελεγε, ελεγον, are evidently used interchangeably with eve, evoy, which are acknowledged aorists. But I see no necessity for regarding this word as imperfect, even in form ; for eleyoy is the regular second aorist form from λέγω, and Schreyelius gives it as such in his Lexicon. May it not be, that
the imperf. of λέγω is supplied from some other root of kindred meaning? I would add, that, as far as I have noticed, ελεξα, the regular first aorist of λέγω, is nowhere found in the N. T. —Compare the aoristic use of eg, imperf. of φημι.
ν᾿ It is generally admitted that evrocs is spurious. I would, therefore, leave out to them.
a Camp., Penn.—I would render ev during, at any time when the sense is better expressed by this rendering, as it often is.
r W., T., C., G., R., Erasm., Vulg., Kenr.—When we consider that avrov is in all the editions of any authority, including the Text. Rec., it is astonishing that the Εἰ V. and most others, have nothing corresponding to it. It is found, besides, in almost all MSS.
* See N. x, v. 11, above.
Ὁ T think it will not be denied that avros has here the force of the Latin ipse = himself—Vulg., Cast., Dt., Trem., Beza, Schott, Erasm.—DeW. (Er).—See N. z, ν. 12, above.
« Germ., De W., (vertraute) ; Dt. (betrouwde) ; It. ( fidara) ; Swed. (betrodde).—Newe., Camp., Penn, Dodd.,Wesl., Kenr.
τ I translate dca to αὐτὸν γενωσκειεν, on account of his know- ing, because this is perfectly good English, and is, by far, the most literal and exact rendering I can find. Besides, it cannot be confounded, in the mind of the English reader, with the trans- lation of ὅτε, because. It also leaves the way clear for translating ὅτε in the next yerse, which is left untranslated in the E. V.
18
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
CHAP. 111.
e THERE was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and _ said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born
Til.
GREEK TEXT.
> r ε Ν > las A X ἐπίστευεν ἑαυτὸν αὐτοῖς, διὰ TO aN 4 72 αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας" ν » , μὴ « 25 καὶ ὅτι οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν ἵνα Ν , fol ΄ὔ τὶς μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώ- \ \ ΩΣ που: αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκε τί ἢν ἐν σις 9 ve τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ. CHAP.
5 \ a "HN δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φα- / la a ρισαίων, Nixodnpos ὄνομα αὐτῷ, a > ἄρχων τῶν ᾿Ϊουδαίων. - 3 Ν Ν fal 2 οὗτος ἦλθε πρὸς Tov’ Incoiy Ἂς XX 53 2 2 i νυκτὸς, καὶ εἶπεν avT@, Pai, σ Ν cal / οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας ΄ > ν Ν a \ διδάσκαλος" οὐδεὶς yap ταῦτα τὰ cr a a a x σημεῖα δύναται ποιεῖν ἃ σὺ ποι- lay 2 My Se Ν » » a Eis, ἐὰν μὴ ἢ ὁ Θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 3 ᾿Απεκρίθη 6 ᾿]ησοῦς καὶ 53 5 n > Ν >’ Ν / εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ᾿Αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω Ν ΄ “ 7 σοι, ἐὰν μὴ τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν,
III.
REVISED VERSION.
count of his knowing [them] all,
25 And because he shad no need that any one should testify of man; for he thimself knew what was in man.
CHAP. III.
aAnp there was a man, of the Pharisees, "his name was Nico- demus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 ‘He came to “Jesus by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou hast come from God as a teacher: for no one can do these ‘signs which tHovu doest, ®if God be not with him.
3 Jesus answered, and said to him, Verily, verily, I say to thee, eIf any one be not born "from
w It is evident, I think, that πάντας refers particularly to those to whom Jesus “did not trust himself,’ and not to the human race in general. The doctrine, that he knows all men, is set forth in the next verse. The only reason, why we may not translate sayras simply ail, is, that in that case it might be taken to mean all things, which is not the meaning.—Erasmus, Vulg., Schott, Beza (omnes); Newe. (all of them).—Dt., Germ.,
Dodd., Camp., Van Ess.
x This is so much more literal than the E. V., that I think, as it is equally elegant, no further apology need be required.—Vulg.
(opus ei non erat) ; other Latin Verss. substantially the same.— Penn, It., Fr. 0.,-S.,—M., Dodd.
* See ch. 2 : 6, N. f—It is very desirable that the connective, de, should here be translated, as we have no reason to believe that the occurrence with which this chapter opens was separated by any considerable interval of time from those detailed in the last chapter. On the contrary, Nicodemus was probably one of those referred to in ch. 2 : 23.
> See ch. 1:6, N.h. © See ch. 1:2, N. c.
4 Almost all the recent editors have αὐτο», instead of Ζη)σουν, which is probably an Italic insertion. I would, therefore, recom- mend that the revised Version read, He came to him by night,
ete., and that this note appear in the margin: According to some copies, to Jesus by night, etc.
f See ch. 2:11, N. x.
5 If not is the literal rendering of ea» μη. I would always adopt it, unless perspicuity or elegance of diction should require a different translation —It., Fr. O.—M., Lus.
h Erasmus (e supernis); De Wette (von obenher) ;-C., Berl. Bib., Rob.—E. Y., v. 31, below, ch. 19:11. James 1:17; 3:15, 17.—It is extremely doubtful whether avwdev ever means, properly, again. It refers either to space or time. Referring to space, it means, from the top, or highest part, downwards, or simply, from above. Referring to time, it means, in like manner, from the source, or highest point, down- wards (time being regarded as something that descends), or simply, from the beginning, from the first. These are the definitions given by Passow, and are believed to be the only senses in which the profane writers, at least, ever use the word. Gal. 4 : 9, is the only passage in the N. Test., in which the word even seems to require the rendering, again (οἷς nahy ανωϑὲν Sovhevew ϑελετε), and even here, if I am not mistaken, we may very properly understand avwJev to mean, from the beginning ; q.4., “to which again (adv) ye wish to be in bondage, going back, and from the beginning (ανωϑεν) living through that dark season of carnal ordinances.” The instances of ad. ανω., cited from the Classics, may probably be explained in a similar way. Perhaps the main reason why
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
Til. 19
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
again, he cannot see the kingdom ot God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, ver- ily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh, is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.
GREEK TEXT.
οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
4 Λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Νικό- δημος, Πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὧν ; μὴ δύνα- ται εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ γεν- νηθῆναι ;
᾿Απεκρίθη δ᾽ Τησοῦς, ᾿Α μὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεν- νηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Π]νεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βα- σιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
6 τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρ- κὸς, σάρξ ἐστι: καὶ τὸ γεγεννη- μένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, πνεῦμά
REVISED VERSION.
above, he cannot see the king- dom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith to him, How can a man be born, ‘being old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born ?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, ver- ily, I say to thee, If any one be not born of water and the 'Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 ‘What 'hath been born of the flesh, is flesh; and ‘what hath been born of the Spirit, is spirit.
ἐστι. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Ἂν ΄ ad 53. ὦ 7 μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπον σοι; Act ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν.
7 Do ποὺ ™wonder, "because I said to thee, Ye must be born bfrom above.
' See Gen. Obs. 4.—I see nothing to prevent the adoption of the participial form here.
} Seen. h, ch. 7: 39.
k Luse what, for that which, because it answers an equally good purpose, and is more concise.—Latin Verss. (quod).
1 Beza (genitum est); other Latin Verss. (natum est).— To express the full sense of the Orig. requires the perfect rendering, especially inv. 8. What is there affirmed of the new creature is true, not only at the moment of regeneration,
but eyer afterwards. The believer remains, all his life, in profound ignorance of the Spirit’s mode of operation, in pro- ducing this heavenly birth.—See Gen. Obs. 4.
m Marvel is so nearly obsolete, that I prefer to drop it entirely, especially since no valid objection can be brought against the word proposed as a substitute. The form with do is adopted, for the sake of euphony and perspicuity.—Newe., Camp., Dodd., Penn, W., Kenr.
» It is sometimes difficult, as in this instance, to determine which of the two principal meanings of ὅτε, because, or that,
so many haye rendered this word again, in the passage before us, is, that Nicodemus, as is said, (Blo., Dodd., Kenr., Alf., and others) must have so understood it, as appears from his using the word devregor, in the next verse. But I cannot admit the force of this argument. 1. Because Nicodemus, having mis- apprehended, in other respects, the purport of the Sayior’s language, and being, at the time, more or less enveloped in spiritual ignorance, is the last man to whom we should apply for instruction in the department of Biblical interpretation. What influence should the hastily formed impressions of his misty mind exert in fixing the more enlightened judgment of those in “ the kingdom of God?” The argument seems to be this: Nicodemus understood the Savior to use avery in its very unusual sense, again, therefore, he must have so used it. By parity of reasoning, Nicodemus understood the Savior to be speaking of a carnal birth, therefore, he must haye been speaking of a carnal birth!—2. Because there is really no discrepancy at all between the interpretation for which I
contend, and the δεύτερον of Nicodemus, in the next verse. To be born from above, is to be born a second time: for a man to be born at all, when he is old, is to be born devtegar, a second time. It does not follow, then, that because Nicodemus understood this to be ὦ second birth, he, therefore, did not understand avwitey to mean from above. The presumption is, that he took the word in its ordinary acceptation, but what puzzled him was, to imagine how this or any other birth was possible, when a man is old.—3. Had the Savior, (or the Evangelist), desired to express in so many words the idea of a second birth, avayervaew, (1 Peter 1: 3, 23) would have expressed it without the slightest ambiguity.—4. Because the phrase, yerrnInvac avoder, is evidently equivalent to, and synonymous with, that other used by this same writer, yer. ex Ocov (ch.1: 13. 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4,18). I would add, that I cannot see why any word should ever be taken in an unusual sense, when the usual rendering makes as good sense, and is fully as consistent with both text and context.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
Ui.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and
said unto him, How can these things be?
S Ἂν Ni καὶ τὴν φωνὴν
9 “AmexpiOn
γενέσθαι;
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
4 VOOKELS ;
° That ro zvevwa does sometimes, among the profane writers, mean the wind, cannot be doubted. This, however, is the only passage in the N. T. in which it is so translated, (though, perhaps, in Heb. 1: 7, πρνευμκατα would be better rendered winds). On the other hand, it must be admitted that wveew is nowhere else in the N. T. predicated of persons, but is always, unless it be in this instance, spoken of the wind. However, we have, in Acts 17: 24, zvon, a noun deriyed from the second perfect of this verb, signifying breath (of men) ; and in Genesis, 2: 7, both Symmachus and Theodotion, trans- late the corresponding Hebrew verb by zveew, where the action is predicated of Jehovah himself. (Parkh.). It may, therefore, be considered as established, that the usages of the Greek language fully justify the proposed translation of this verse, and free it from all philological difficulty. I have endeavored to give due weight to the argument for the common rendering drawn from the alleged comparison in the last part of the verse: “SO is every one that hath been born of the Spirit.” But it should be borne in mind, that οὕτως does not always (though it does generally) introduce a comparison. In fact, the idea of comparison is not at all inherent in the word, but is, in all cases where it exists, to be inferred from the connection in which it is used. And I do not see why, in this case, this last clause of the verse may not be viewed as a repetition of the preceding idea, in more emphatic language, what was before stated as a general truth being here affirmed to be universal. My reasons, then, for the proposed change are the following: 1. The Holy Spirit, not the wind, is the subject of conyersation in the context.—2. It is not true, im any proper sense, of the wind, that it “blows where it wills :” “nam huic, (Spiritui,) non yento, voluntas et vox est.” (Beng.) The winds are God’s messengers, (Ps. 104: 4) sent to per- form his will, and under his absolute control (Matt. 8: 27). With this spiritual doctrine Nicodemus was, doubtless,
to adopt. The difference between the idea expressed by the version here given, and that expressed by the vast majority of versions, seems to be this: The latter means, Do not be astonished at me for advancing this sentiment; while the
GREEK TEXT.
Ἂς ἴω 7 / ΄σ 8 τὸ πνεῦμα ὕπου θέλει πνεῖ,
» > 5 / 7 ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ~ c ’ὔ o a ποῦ ὑπάγει: οὕτως ἐστὶ πᾶς ὁ la “ , γεγεννημένος EK TOD πνεύματος.
εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Πῶς δύναται ταῦτα 10 ᾿Απεκρίθη o ᾿]ησοῦς καὶ
= πὰ ἀπ Ὁ SR
εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος a \ “
τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γι-
REVISED VERSION.
8 The Spirit °breathes where he Pwill, and thou hearest °his °voice; but thou 4%knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that ‘hath been born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered, and said to him, How can _ these things be?
> cal > We αὐτου QAKOVELS,
“Νικόδημος Kat
10 Jesus answered, and said to him, *T'uov art *the teacher of Israel, and knowest thou not these things ?
familiar, and would be very unlikely to understand the Savior as teaching that the wind blows where, and whenever, it pleases. On the other hand, it is emphatically true of the Spirit of God, that he “breathes where he will.”—3. If το πνευμα... MEELIS aS properly rendered, the Spirit breathes, as the wind blows, I do not see how there could be, to the mind of a Greek, any proper comparison in the case; for there is manifestly nothing in the connection to remind him of the wind. The most that could be urged, is, that the Savior was making use of the double entendre, which is very unlikely indeed.—W., R., Nary, Kenr.—The Latin Verss. generally have Spiritus spirat, which, like the Greek, is, in the letter, ambiguous.
P I think the idea is better expressed by the weak sub- junctive form, as in ch. 5: 21, than by the indicative-—Kenr. (willeth) ; W., R., Penn, Newe., Dodd., Nary.
4 Certainly, οὐκ ocdas is simply, thow knowest not. The E. V. has it, as here, in ch. 8: 14: 16: 18. Matt. 21: 27. Luke 20: 7. 2 Cor. 12: 2, 3, in all which cases it would read perfectly well, if translated literally—W. (woost not).—R., Newc., Camp., Nary, Kenr.
τ IT see no good reason for including this first clause in the question of which it forms no necessary part.—W., R., Fr. 0.,-S.-M., Vulg., De W., It., Kenr.
* Τ think it probable, that Nicodemus had not only acquired a “ pre-eminent degree of celebrity,” as has been remarked by an editor, but that he was conscious of his being, indeed, a skillful interpreter of the Scriptures, and more or less proud of his attainments. And it may not be out of place to con- jecture, that the Savior’s remark was, in some sense, ironical, and intended to rebuke this pride, of the existence of which he was well aware.—De W., Beng., Camp., Kenr.
t E. V., v. 2, above.-—Newe., Camp., Dodd., Wesl., Penn.— See ch. 1: 38, N. m.
former means, Do not be astonished at the sentiment which I haye advanced, This I take to be the true meaning of the Orig.—Vulg. (quia); Erasm., Trem., Beza, Schott, (qued) ; W. (for); other Eng. Verss. (that).
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lift- ed up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- gotten Son, that whosoever be- lieveth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
Ill. 21
GREEK TEXT. > \ > Ν ,ὔ a
11 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ὅτι a ” = CEN Ὁ ΄ ὃ οἴδαμεν λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωρά-
“ Ν καμεν μαρτυροῦμεν" καὶ τὴν μαρ- τυτίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε.
12 εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὑμῖν, καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς, ἐὰν εἴπω Ε΄ ἂν \ > 7, ΄ ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια, πιστεύσετε;
> 13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς \ > κ᾿ N a τὸν οὐρανὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ EK τοῦ οὐ- fal δ « eX a pavod καταβὰς, 0 υἱὸς τοῦ avOpa- x n > “
που 0 ὧν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ"
Ν a
14 καὶ καθὼς Moons ὕψωσε τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως ὑψω- θῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου:
15 ἵνα πᾶς 0 πιστεύων εἰς αὐ-
Ν οἷ ΕΣ / > \ τὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ Conv 7 αἰώνιον.
10 οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ
Ἢ) > tA οὐ / πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἰλλ᾽ yx ζ Ν 4. Ὁ ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς
Ν eX - a Ν ,ὔ τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ εἰς τὸν κόσμον,
REVISED VERSION.
11 Verily, verily, I say to thee, «What we know we speak, and wwhat we have seen we testify ; and ye receive not our ‘testimony.
12 If I vtold you earthly things, and ye believe not, how, uf I tell you heavenly things, will ye believe?
13 And no one hath ¥gone up into heaven, except he that came down out of heaven, the Son of man who *was in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That every one that be- lieveth on him may «not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his Son, ‘the Only Begotten, that »every one that believeth on him might not perish, but have ceternal life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world, ‘that he might
α See v. 6, above, N. τ᾿, and Gen. Obs. 6. τ See ch. 1: 7, N. j.
~ See Gen. Obs. 4.
x See Gen. Obs. 5.
y See N. w, ch. 1: 33.
* Ὁ wy= ὃς nv, as is admitted by many learned interpreters. It is not, however, because the Evang. uses the former for the latter, either through caprice, or ignorance of the language, as is hinted by some, but because the present participle, (espe- cially of those verbs that have no aorist in use,) is legitimately and properly referred to past time, whenever it depends on a past tense. In this it resembles very much the infinitive mood. —See Trollope’s Gr. to the N. T. § 60. Obs. 21.—There are numerous illustrations of the above remark in the E.V. See ch. 1:48; 9: 25,405 11:31; 12:17; 20:15 21:11. Mark. 2:26; 14:66. Luke 6:3; 22: 53; 23:7; 24: 6,44. Acts Te DADs Oev3830$ δε dey 14: 13 9162 35-192 31; 20: 34; 21: 8; 22:5,95 24: 245 oF: oF Rot! 42 10; 5: 6,8, and many other passages, where wy is rendered by the Eng. imperf. Indeed, there is scarcely a real exception to the rule, according to which this is done, unless here, and in ch. 1: 18,
in both which cases the circumstances as strongly call for the past rendering as in any of those cited above.
υ See Gen. Obs. 6.—I would always, when practicable, trans- late sas ὃ, every one that, or every one who.—k. V. vy. 8, 20; ch.6:40; 18:37. Matth. 7 : 8, 21, 26; 25:29. Luke 11:10; 18:14; 19: 26. Rom.1:16; 10: 4 1 Cor. 16: 16. Gal. 3.13. 2 Tim. 2:19. Heb. 5: 13. 1 John 2: 29; 4: 7; 5: 1.
© Lachm., Tisch., and Penn, with some of the most ancient MSS. and Verss., reject μη απτοληται add’, which Griesb. con- siders a probable interpolation. I would adopt this reading, and leave out not perish, but, with this note in the margin. : Many copies read, may not perish, but have, &e.
4 As avrov stands between τον vioyv and toy uovoyern, it seems evident, that the latter is in apposition with the former, and is strictly used as an appellative. If this be so, the render- ing given is necessary to express the full force of the Orig.
¢ Eternal and everlasting are used about an equal number of times in the E.V. to translate aewos. Hither is well enough; but I see no necessity for both. I haye uniformly adopted the former.
f See ch. 1:7, N. k.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
world, but that the worldthrough him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him, is not condemned: but he that believeth not, is condemned al- ready, because he hath not be- lieved in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemna- tion, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; tarried with them, and baptized.
23 And John also was bap- tizing in Anon, near to Salim, because there was much water
® The Orig. is not ὅτε, but yao. g γας
and there he},
It is rendered because, in the EK. V. of ch. 10: 29. Rom, 4: 15; seeing, in Acts 2:
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
Ill.
GREEK TEXT.
“ / Δ. / > 9. δ οἢ
wa κρίνῃ τὸν κοσμον, ἀλλ ἵνα ne / 2 > fod
σωθῇ ὃ κόσμος Ov αὐτοῦ.
ε 4 > amg 5 18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ ΄ ε \ Ν , ” κρίνεται: ὃ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων HON ,ὔ oe οἱ κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς νυ lel 7 con TO ὄνομα TOU μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ TOU Θεοῦ. “ “ἘΞ ec 7 [χὰ 19 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι \ a 3. Ἐ7 » \ / To φώς ἐληλύθεν εἰς Tov κόσμον, ΄ 7 Ἢ καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλ- λον τὸ σκότος, ἢ τὸ φῶς: ἦν γὰρ πονηρὰ αὐτῶν τὰ ἔργα. 7 20 πᾶς yap ὁ φαῦλα πράσ- tot N 5 + Tov, μισεῖ TO φῶς, Kal οὐκ ἔρχε- \ \ as oe AN ῳᾺ “ ται πρὸς TO φώς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ N. vig? > - τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ" ε \ a A , 21 ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, "΄ \ \ > oe ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φώς, ἵνα have- lal > fal ἊΨ + “ tal poly αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι ἐν Θεῴ > ΄ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα. Ν a 5 > 22 Mera ταῦτα ἦλθεν 0,’ In- a © > a Ν σοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν / “ Δ, ἐδ -“ / Τουδαίαν γῆν. καὶ exec διέτριβε > Bim “σ NG 13 ΄ μετ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβάπτιζεν. 53 \ , 23 ἣν δὲ καὶ Twavyns βαπτί- wean \ a Cov ev Αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς Tod Σαλεὶμ,
in the sense of χωρα.
15;
REVISED VERSION.
condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not hath been con- demned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemna- tion, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light ; ®for their "works were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil ‘things hateth the light, jand cometh not to the light, «that his sworks may not be reproved.
21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, so that his ‘works may be 'manifested, that they have been wrought in God.
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the Judean land, and there he tar- ried with them, and was "lm- mersing.
23 And John also was "im- mersing in Ainon, near to Salim, because there °were °many wa-
Not haying been able to find a form of
expression in common use that I consider unobjectionable, I
and because that in Acts 28: 20. 8John7. In all these cases, I would render simply, as here, for; not because yag is not a causative particle, but for the purpose of distinguishing it from ovu.—See ch. 1: 15, N. i—Newe.
For the sake of uniformity, I would always translate egyor work, This is its usual translation in the EH. V.
' According to the usual custom, in such cases, I supply the word things, to indicate that the adjective is plural.
1 And not is the literal rendering of καὶ ovx.—W., R., It., Newe., Dodd., Nary, Kenr., Trem., Vulg., Germ., DeW.,Van Ess.
* See ch. 1: 7, N. k.
1 See ch. 1: 31, Ν. 5.
m Tt is generally agreed, (Dodd., Blo., Alf., and others,) that τὴν Ιουδαίαν γὴν means, not Judea, or the land of Judea, in the usual sense, but, “the territory of Judea, as distinguished from its metropolis:” in other words, that yy is here taken
have concluded to recommend the literal translation, Judean land, in imitation of the respectable authorities cited below. —Germ., DeW., Van Ess, (das Jiidische Land); Vulg., Cast., Erasm., (in terram Judeam).
Ὁ See ch. 1: 25, N. a.
° Some take ὕδατα πολλα to be = many streams, or fount- ains, (Rob., Blo., and others,) others understand this expres- sion to mean, a great abundance of water. The latter view is sustained both by the context and parallel passages. Though the literal rendering, many waters, may be pronounced a He- braism, yet it has been so long domesticated in our English scriptures, that no practical good could result from rejecting it, especially since the precise meaning of this foreign idiom is necessarily to be determined by the context.—Vulg., W., It.— E. V., Rev. 1: 15; 14: 2; 17: 1 (with art.); 19: 6.—Those just cited are the only other passages in which this expression occurs in the N. T.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
there: and they came, and were baptized.
24 For John was not yet cast into prison.
25 Then there arose a ques- tion between some of John’s disciples and the Jews, about purifying.
26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jor- dan, to whom thou barest wit- ness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which stand- eth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly, because of the bride-
groom’s voice: this my joy there- |
fore is fulfilled.
GREEK TEXT.
“ ¢ \ 3 a OTL ὕδατα πολλὰ ἣν ἐκεῖ: καὶ πα- ρεγίνοντο καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο. c » \ 3 24 οὔπω γὰρ ἢν βεβλημένος > Ν Ν «? ΄ εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν ὁ Lwavyns. > Ἁ ic] 25 °Hyévero οὖν ζήτησις ἐκ ΄ “ » Ψ \? τῶν μαθητῶν LIwavvov pera ᾿[ου- δαίων περὶ καθαρισμοῦ" > x AY ’ 26 καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς τὸν ᾿ἤω- ΄ 3 a Ε ἄννην καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ, “PaBpi, ὃς ἢν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ ᾿]ορ- δάνου, ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει, καὶ πάντες ἔρχον- \ ie δ, ται πρὸς αὐτον. > > , 27 ᾿Απεκρίθη “Lwavyns καὶ 53 > ΄ εἶπεν, Οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμ- Bavew οὐδὲν, ἐ ἐὰν μὴ ἢ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. 28 αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς μοι μαρτυρεῖτε “ 3 > 5 Ne ἃ ε ὅτι εἶπον, Ovk εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὃ Χρι- \ > ae > / > στος, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου. ε la Ν ὩΣ 29 ὁ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην, νυμ- ν᾽ » , c \ ͵ a ios ἐστίν: ὁ δὲ φίλος τοῦ vup- « \ / piov, ἑστηκὼς καὶ ἀκούων > “ oo o ds \ αὐτοῦ, χαρᾷ χαίρει διὰ τὴν φω- νὴν τοῦ νυμφίου. αὕτη οὖν ἡ τίς \ f χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται.
ni. 93
REVISED VERSION.
ters there : and they pwere com- ing and rbeing "immersed.
24 For John had not yet been cast into the prison.
25 There owas, therefore, a question between the disciples of John and «the Jews, about purifying.
26 And they came to John, and said to him, Rabbi, he whu was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom tHovu hast ‘testified, behold, “we is ‘immersing, and all are coming to him.
27 John answered, and said, A man can receive nothing, ex- cept it hath been given him from
heaven.
28 Yr yourselves testify to me, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I have been sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride, is ‘the bridegroom. Now the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth »with joy, because of the bridegroom’s voice: this, therefore, my joy, hath been fulfilled.
P According to the Τὸ. V. which translates aoristically, Jesus and his disciples were the persons who came and were immersed. But this is not the fact of history, nor is it implied in the Orig. All ambiguity vanishes when the verbs are put in the proper imperfect form, they (people) were coming, and being immersed, i. e., they kept coming all the while, which can not possibly be predicated of Jesus and his disciples.
4 T see no good reason for varying from the common rendering
of γενομαι, when no important advantage is gained thereby — Dodd., Fr. 0.,-S.-M.
* Almost all modern translators and editors regard Iovdacov, which is found in the large majority of existing MSS., as the true reading. All, I believe, reject 7ουδαίω», of the Textus Receptus, as spurious. I confess that I consider the conjectural emendation of Bentley, adopted by Penn (Jjoov), sustained by an
overwhelming weight of internal evidence; but, as there is, as far as is known, no manuscriptural authority for this reading, I dare not venture to recommend its adoption—De Wette, Van Ess, Newe., Dodd., and others—Jn view of all the facts known, I would recommend that it be made to read, in the revision, with a Jew, ete.
t See ch. 1:7, N. j. See οἷ. 1 : 2, N.c. See ch. 1 : 25, Ν. ἃ. See Gen. Obs. 1.
u π
x
7. This Hebraism is very beautiful, and I should be very glad
to have it incorporated in the translation. sion occurs in Luke 22:15:
A similar expres- “With desire I desired” (exePuuca exePvunoa)—Doddridge (with great joy), W., R., Kenr., Newe. marg.
24
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
80 He must increase, but I must decrease.
31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth ; and no man receiveth his testimony.
33 He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true.
34 For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
CHAP. IV.
Wuen therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and bap- tized more disciples than John,
* I have adopted this phraseology (which is perfectly literal,)
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
GREEK TEXT. ΄ ΄σ 4 30 ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν, ἐμὲ Nie) “ de ἐλαττοῦσθαι. ey / "a 31 ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος, ἐπάνω , > Ce “ ca πάντων ἐστὶν. ὁ ὧν EK τῆς γῆς; yn Cape aoe ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστι, Kal ἐκ τῆς γῆς ΧΩ fot a / λαλεῖ: ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμε- ΄’ / νος, ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστὶ, Ω Ν᾿ ἂν «Ὁ x 3», 92 καὶ ὃ EWPAKE καὶ ἤκουσε; a σ΄ Ν τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ: καὶ τὴν μαρτυ- ΄ > lol ’ \ , ρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει. c Ν᾽ > fol \ 33 0 λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυ- , > / “ « Ν > ρίαν, ἐσφράγισεν ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς aAn- , Ons ἐστιν. a \ / Ν 84 ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὺς, \ es - a 5 » τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ Θεοῦ λαλεῖ: ov x > / / « Ν Ν yap ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν 6 Θεὸς τὸ “νεῦμα. ε Ν J lol Ν eX 35 ὃ πατήρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. : Ω « ΄ > Ν eX 36 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν, x \ aie ε Δ. Ὁ n ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον: ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν a che, » Ν Sime τῷ υἱῳ, οὐκ ὄψεται Conv, GAN ἡ Ν a fal ,ὔ / ὀργὴ Tov Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. CHAP. IV. e 5 yy “σι 7 QZ οὖν ἔγνω ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι a © “-“ “ ᾽ ἤκουσαν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, ὅτι ᾿[Πη- ΄σ Ν cal σοῦς πλείονας μαθητὰς ποιεῖ καὶ
βαπτίζει ἢ ᾿Ιωάννης"
IV.
REVISED VERSION.
30 He must increase, but I [must] decrease.
31 He that cometh from above is above all. He that is of the earth, τοῦ the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh from heaven is above all.
32 And what he hath seen and heard, ‘this he testifieth ; and no one receiveth his testimony.
33 He that receiveth his testi- mony ‘hath set his seal, that God is true.
34 For he whom God sent speaketh the words of God: for »God giveth not the Spirit by measure.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath seternal life: “but he that ‘obeyeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth upon him.
CHAP. IV.
Wuen, therefore, the Lord knew, “that the Pharisees had heard, *That Jesus was making and ‘immersing more disciples than John;
4] think the connection shows clearly that de has an ad-
verbatim from R. Substantially the same are Vulg., Germ., De W., It., Dt., Fr. O.-S.—M., Dodd., Kenr.
* This is, 1 think, one of the few instances (in the N. T.,) in which the aorist is used as an indefinite present.—Penn, Newe. (hath set his seal) ; It., Vulg., Dt., Germ., Berl. Bib., Beng., De W., (hath sealed.)—I can hardly imagine what the E. V. hath set to his seal, can mean, unless set to is used in the sense of affix, in which case, the meaning would be correctly, but not happily, expressed.
> Tisch, and Penn omit 6 Θεος, which is wanting in some very ancient MSS., and which Griesb. and Lachm. consider a very probable interpolation. JI recommend that this note be placed in the margin: According to some copies, for he giveth not, &e.
c H.V., generally.—See ch. 4: 18, N.q., and v. 16, above, N.e.
yersative force here.—See Gen. Obs. 6.
¢ The yerb, απειϑειν, properly signifies, to disobey ; and this is much more forcible than to disbelieve, since there are yery many who profess to believe with all their hearts, yet neyer show their faith by works.—De W., Berl. Bib., (unge- horsam ist) ; Sharpe (disobeyeth).—G., Dt., Cast., Wesl.
« W., R., Newe., Dodd., Camp., and others.—Hovw is, in this sense, quite obsolete.
> De W., W., R., Vulg—De W. treats this phrase as a quo- tation, in which opinion I would concur. Hence I write That, with a capital. In such cases, ὅτε is often left untranslated in the E.V., but not always. See Mark 6: 15; Luke 4: 4; 7: 16. ch. 7: 42, and others.
¢ See N. a, ch. 1: 25.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
2 (Though Jesus himself bap- tized not, but his disciples,)
3 He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.
4 And he must
needs go through Samaria.
5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore being wearied with fis journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
IV. 25
GREEK TEXT.
2 (καίτοιγε ᾿Ϊ]ησοῦς αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐβάπτιζεν, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐ- τοῦ")
“ N
3 ἀφῆκε τὴν ‘Lovdaiav, καὶ » “ tL > Ν ἀπῆλθε πάλιν εἰς τὴν 1] Ἁλιλαίαν.
ΕΣ \ δον , \ ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας. > 5 , = 5 ἔρχεται οὖν εἰς πόλιν τῆς , 4 Ν Σαμαρείας λεγομένην Συχὰρ, πλησίον τοῦ χωρίου ὃ ἔδωκεν ᾿7α- Ν > A “-“ on > n κὼβ ᾿Ιωσὴφ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ. 5 Ge fal Ν a
6 ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ πηγὴ Tov ᾿]ακώβ. ε 53 > a Ν ΄ ὁ οὖν ᾿]ησοῦς κεκοπιακὼς ἐκ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας ἐκαθέζετο οὕτως ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ. ὧρα ἦν ὡσεὶ ἔκτη.
Τ᾽ Ἔρχεται γυνὴ ἐκ τῆς Σα-
/, > ” [τὰ / μαρείας ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ. λέγει
» Ὁ Δ. fol / “
αὐτῇ ὁ Inoovs, Alos μοι πιεῖν.
€ Ν » ca > 8 οἱ yap μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπε-
΄ : κ᾿ ἢ ς: ληλύθεισαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἵνα
REVISED VERSION.
2 (Though Jesus himself did not ‘immerse, but his disciples ;)
3 He left Judea, and ‘went away again into Galilee.
4 And it *was necessary that he should go through Samaria.
5 He cometh, therefore, to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near to the ‘piece of ground which Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus, therefore, ‘having become weary from the journey, was sitting thus on the well. It was about the sixth hour.
7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus saith to her, Give me to drink.
8 (For his disciples were gone away ‘into the city, ®*that they
9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it
9 “έγει οὖν
οὗ > , Tpopas ayopacwot.
a a εἰ “ ᾺἊ Σαμαρεῖτις, Πῶς σὺ ᾿]ουδαῖος ὧν
might buy "provisions.)
9 The ‘Samaritan woman,
αὐτῷῴ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ : ; therefore, saith to him, How
d W., R., Newe., Penn, Kenr., (went).—To go away is cer- tainly more forcible than to depart, and is the more usual translation of the word.
ὁ The impersonal verb, dec, I would render must, in the pres., and it was necessary that, in the imperf., (because must lacks a separate form for the imperf.) ; especially whenever it implies simply the necessity, or certainty of an event. When it implies duty, or moral obligation, I would sometimes trans- late by ought, when the subject is expressed, otherwise by one ought. Must needs is, of course, to be rejected, as ob- solete.—Kenr.
f W., Cast., (place); T., C., G.,It., (possession) ; R. (manor) ; Vulg. (praedium); Germ. (Dérflein); De W., All., (Felde) . Kist. (Ackerfelde); Dt. (stuck lants).— Parcel, in modern language, does not exactly express the idea: it is too diminu- tive, and would not, at the present day, be used in speaking of land, or similar objects.
ΓΓ In the E.V., being wearied with his journey, the condi- tion of weariness is represented as simultaneous with the act of sitting on the well. The Orig. expresses more than this. The perfect participle, xexomzazmws, implies that he had been weary before he sat down, or eyen arrived at the well. The difference between the two renderings is, indeed, but small;
still, it is worth the slight trouble of correction.—From is the usual translation of «x, and is even better here than with.
® Unto, or to, is by no means the primary signification of εἰς, which is placed almost always before the names of objects which are, in some sense or another, viewed as capable of being entered, the primary meaning of the preposition being info. Still, there are cases in which the Eng. idiom precludes the rendering into, where to is the best that can be given. This is not true, however, in the present instance. I have adopted this general rule, not only for ees, but also for other preposi- tions: neyer to depart from the primary meaning, unless the Eng. idiom require a different rendering, in order to make good sense, or unless the true sense is, according to the Eng. idiom,
| better expressed by a different preposition.
56 See N. k, ch. 1: 7.
h This word occurs in the plural only in this place, in the N. T. I prefer, for the sake of greater accuracy, to translate it by a plural noun. In the sing., I would always render it, food, which is more in modern style than meat.—Kenr. marg.
' R., Penn, Vulg., Cast., Dt., Germ., DeW., Port., It., Newe. Camp., Wesl., Nary, Kenr., Erasm., Beza, Trem.—As Sama- ritan-woman is entirely pure English, I do not see why it should not be adopted.
96
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP. IV.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that liy- ing water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again :
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst ; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
GREEK TEXT. > lal r lal Tap ἐμοῦ πιεῖν αἰτεῖς, οὔσης ἊΝ γυναικὸς Σαμαρείτιδος ; οὐ γὰρ ΄ > col συγχρῶνται Lovdaio. Lapapei- ταις. > x 5 10 ᾿ΑἋπεκρίθη ᾿]ησοῦς καὶ εἶ- 228 eo, \ \ πεν αὐτῇ, Ei nodes τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὃ λέγων / lat NOX 5, σοι, Mos μοι πιεῖν, σὺ ἂν ἤτησας Ν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἔδωκεν ζῶν. ΄ » -~ ἘΦ A , 11 Aeye: αὐτῷ ἡ γυνὴ, Κυ- + ΕΣ y+ Ν \ ple, οὔτε avTAnpa ἐχεῖς, καὶ TO 4 2 Ν 7 / Ss y+ eap ἐστὶ Babu: ποθεν οὖν ἔχεις ρ x ue Ney Ν κ᾿ τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν ; 9 Ν Ν y 5 an \ 12 μὴ ov μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς chan > \ a ” Cn ν᾿ ἡμῶν LakwB, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ Ν “ιν φρέαρ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔπιε, « . “ ἊΝ καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὰ θρέμ- ματα αὐτοῦ ; 18 ᾿Απεκρίθη ὃ ᾿Ϊ]ησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Πᾶς ὃ πίνων ἐκ τοῦ ω ΄ ὕδατος τούτου, διψήσει πάλιν" a ΤΟΝ / ’ ao 14 ὃς δ᾽ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ Tov ὕδατος @ 5... ͵ > ᾿ς » Ν ΄, οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσῃ » δ bias 2 \ \ “ ἃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα: ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ lal , ’ a δώσω αὐτῷ, γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ ed ε / > \ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Ν DISS «ε \ 15 Λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ γυνὴ; / , a Ν A Κύριε, δὸς μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ, oo \ led ΧΡ Ψ » ἵνα μὴ διψῶ, μηδὲ ἔρχωμαι ἐν- » ΄σ θάδε ἀντλεῖν.
ay “ὕ ἂν σοι ὕδωρ
REVISED VEPSION.
dost tHov, being a Jew, ask drink of ΜῈ, who am a ‘Samari- tan woman? For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.
10 Jesus answered, and said to her, If thou didst know the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, tHou wouldst ask him, and he would give thee living water.
11 The woman saith to him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence, then, hast thou ‘the living water ?
12 Art rHov greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank κοῦ it himself, and his *«sons, and his cattle?
13 Jesus answered, and said to her, 1Every one that drinketh of this water will thirst again.
14 But whoever drinketh of the water which I will give him, shall never thirst; but the wa- ter which I will give him shali “become in him a well of wa- ter, springing up into ceternal life.
15 The woman saith to him, Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, »nor come hither to draw.
3 Rhemish, Dutch, De Wette, Portuguese, Campbell—The simple article, it is true, does not fully express the force of the
double Greek article, but we can scarcely afford, out of our
limited resources, to strengthen the translation by using mate- rials that are certain to be required in rendering other forms of
expression.
ambiguity, I think I would make the rule, now so general, a universal one, or nearly so.
1 See N. b, ch. 3 : 16, and Gen. Obs. 6. Ὁ Wesl., Nary, Kenr., It., Fr. 0.-S.—M., Vulg., R—W. (be
made).—H. V., ch. 1:12. Acts4:11; 10:10. Rom. 3:19.
1 Cor. 3 : 18, etc.
k Newcome, Rhemish, Doddridge—See General Observa-
tions 6.
kk Son is almost always in the singular, and very often in the plural, the translation of véos, adopted in the E. V. To prevent
ο See N. 6, ch. 3: 16.
P Newe., Camp., Dodd., Penn, Kenr.— Neither, in this connec-
See Gen. Obs. 6.
tion, is in violation of the modern rules of English grammar.—
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Go call thy husband, hither.
17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18 For thou hast had five hus- bands, and he whom thou now hast, iy not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Wo- man, believe me, the hour com- eth, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we wor- ship, for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worship- pers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Fa- ther seeketh such to worship him.
and come|”
IV. 27
GREEK TEXT.
16 Aéye αὐτῇ ὃ ᾿Ϊ]ησοῦς, Yraye, φώνησον τὸν ἄνδρα σου, καὶ ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε.
17 ᾿Απεκρίθη ἡ γυνὴ καὶ εἶ- πεν, Οὐκ ἔχω ἄνδρα. Δέγει αὐτῇ ὁ ᾿Ϊ]ησοῦς, Καλῶς εἶπας,
“ » 4 Or ἄνδρα οὐκ ἔχω:
4 Ν yy y 18 πέντε yap avdpas ἔσχες" = ἃ » > -, καὶ νῦν ὃν ἔχεις, οὐκ ἔστι σου ᾽ / “- » \ yw avnp* τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας. / Cone ge \ / 19 Λέγει αὐτῷ ἢ γυνὴ, Αὐὖ- nd y pte, θεωρῶ ore προφήτης εἰ av. 20 οἱ έ «ε fol ’ Ὁ , o Ὁ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ Opel προσεκύνησαν" καὶ ὑμεῖς λ ᾽ὔ “ ’ ὉΠ λ / 5 ἊΝ eyeTe, ὅτι ἐν “]εροσολύμοις ἐστὶν « / “ a “ ὁ τόπος, ὕπου δεῖ προσκυνεῖν. Dik 1 / ΕΣ ΄“ « TT. ΄- 21 “έγει αὐτῇ ὁ ᾿Ϊησοῦς, Tv ,ὔ , a » ὕναι, πίστευσον μοι, OTL ἔρχε- σ ", » Ἂν ται WP, OTE οὔτε ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ ε Γ οὔτε ἐν ᾿]εροσολύμοις προσκυ- δ cal νήσετε τῷ πατρί. ° tal a 22 ὑμεῖς “προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ / οἴδατε" ἡμεῖς. προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν" ὅτι y σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν ᾿Τουδαίων ἐστίν. > + “ Δ hte 23 ἀλλ᾽ ἔρχεται wpa καὶ νῦν a © ἐστιν, ὅτε οἱ αληθινοὶ προσκυ- / a νηταὶ προσκυνήσουσι τῷ. πατρὶ / / \ ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ: καὶ yap \ / ΄ Ν ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς a 3 «ἢ προσκυνοῦντας αὐτόν.
REVISED VERSION.
16 Jesus saith to her, Go, eall thy husband, and come hither.
17 The woman answered, and said, I have no husband. Jesus saith to her, Well Pedidst thou say, I have no husband.
18 For thou hast had five hus- bands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband. *This ahast thou spoken truly.
19 The woman saith to him, Sir, I'see that ruou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain ; and ὙῈ say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith to her, Woman, believe me, ‘that an hour is com- ing, when neither in this mount- ain, nor in Jerusalem, will ye worship the Father.
22 Yu worship twhat ye know not: wE worship twhat we know: "because salvation is of the Jews.
23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. for the Father ‘also seeketh such was his worshipers.
aK. V., Luke 12 : 10. 139. 4.405920)2 38'5c2385)5.
Ch. 11:13.
universal rendering of τοῦτο.
τ W.—In the few passages where Pewoeeey is rendered to per- ceive, in the E. V., it may very properly be translated to see.
Rom. 4 : 18.—Luke 4 : 23, is, I be- lieve, the only passage, besides this, in the E. V., where egeew is translated to say, when used transitively—This is the almost
Acts 2s Gis\= 8.5. 24s
vy W., C., and R. translate καὶ, also. lessly left untranslated—Germ., De W.
« It has been well said (Blo., Alf.) that ὅτε here introduces a reason for the fact before mentioned. translated, because—See ch. 1 : 15, N. i.
Therefore, it ought to be
In the E. V. it is need-
* There is nothing here to prevent the translation of ὅτε.
t Newe., Camp., Latin Verss—Penn (that)—It is very evident that the E. V. does not convey the sense of the Orig. correctly. Besides it departs unnecessarily from the literal rendering of the words.
~ Though the future part. often, and the pres. part. sometimes (see Buttm., 2144, No. 3) are used to express a purpose, when without the article, 7. e., when they express merely a verbal idea, yet I can find no authority for so regarding them, when they stand for substantives, as they almost always do, when preceded by the article. -
28
KING JAMES’ VERSION.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ; when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he
0 Ἂ, > a talked with the woman: yet no μαθηταὶ avTov,
x “The most eminent critics are agreed that the clause, 6 λεγομεενος «ἄριστος, came from the Evangelist, not the woman.” (Blo.) Accordingly, the majority of versions have this clause enclosed in a parenthesis.
7 Talk is a very common rendering of λαλεω. It appears here to be used of familiar conversation, as it often is else- where. Hence talk more forcibly expresses the idea than speak.—Newce.—E. V. y. 27, below——As no preposition pre- cedes goz, to is preferable to with.
2 See N. m, ch. 3: 7.
2 There has been much controversy among the learned, as to the cause of the surprise attributed to the disciples, in this verse. The settlement of this dispute would, perhaps, be much aided by first determining the proper rendering of wera γυναι- Does this phrase mean, with the woman, = wera τὴς γυναιπος, and referring definitely to the person spoken of in the preceding verses, or, simply, with ἃ woman, as it literal- ly reads, without the article? Dodd., Newe., Blo., Midd.. Alf., maintain the former, while Camp., Wesl, Meyer, and others, hold the latter. Midd. and Alf. maintain, that “no inference can be drawn, as to the indefiniteness of the noun, from the omission of the article, after a preposition.” Now notwithstanding the bold and sweeping assertion of these learn- ed critics, unsupported, so far as I have seen, by a single re- ference to parallel passages, I do not hesitate to express the opinion, that we are not only at liberty, but are solemnly bound, to infer the indefiniteness of a noun from the omission of the article, even after a preposition, uuless other and weightier considerations should urge to the opposite inference : for no candid scholar, I presume, will alledge that the use or omission of the art., even in such cases, is a matter of in- difference, not subject to any fixed rule, though we, in our comparative ignorance, may not always perceive the force and application of the rule. It remains, then, to settle the question, Do those weightier considerations exist in the present case ? I reply: 1. No one has, I believe, ever denied that μετὰ τὴς
κοςξ.
THE GOSPEL. BY JOHN. CHAP.
GREEK TEXT.
24 Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεὸς: καὶ τοὺς προσκυνούντας αὐτὸν, ἐν πνεύ- ματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν.
25 Λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνὴ, Οἶδα ὅτι Meaaias ἔρχεται: (ὁ λεγό- μενος Χριστός") ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖ- νος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν πάντα.
26 A€ya αὐτῇ ὁ ᾿Ϊ]ησοῦς, "Ey εἰμι, 6 λαλῶν σοι.
27 Καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἦλθον οἱ
a \ Ν 2 Uf > Ν OTL μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλει" οὐδεὶς
IV.
REVISED VERSION.
24 God [is] aspirit; and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
25 The woman saith to him, I know that Messiah is coming, *(who is called Christ :) when he cometh, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith to her, I,</