^{page 168 note 1} A Grammar of Mew Testament Greek, 1, Prolegomena (Edinburgh, 1908), 83.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 2} The Doctrine of the Greek Article applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, rev. ed. by Rose, H. J. (London, 1833), 71–88.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 3} ‘On the Article with Proper Names’, American Journal of Philology, xi (1890), 483–7.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 4} Ibid. p. 487, ‘… the pretty contrast between Plato and Isokrates is not simply a contrastof individualities, it is a contrast of provinces’.

^{page 168 note 5} Cf. Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans, and rev. by Funk, R. W. (Chicago, 1961), par. 260: ‘…it obviously dependsto a large measure on the preference of the author whether he desires to express the relation between frequent references to the same person or not’.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 6} Johannine Grammar (London, 1906), pp. 57–8.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 7} Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen, 1913), 1, 2, p. 319.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 8} Op. cit. par. 260.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 9} Syntax, vol. iii of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Hope Moulton (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. 166–7.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 10} ‘Der Gebrauch des Artikels bei den Eigennamen’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, LXXXVI 352–5.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 1} Quite often his explanations seem forced. For example, he suggested that is anarthrous when others than the evangelist are speaking, but had to admit that his examples also fit other idioms. He completely missed the use of in δτι-clauses, and therefore was forced to explain away the arthrous usage at vi. 22 (cf. below, p. 179 n. 8). Cf. also p. 170 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 2} A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St John (Edinburgh, 1928), 1, 42–3. He isolates four idioms: ‘… where an appositional phrase with the article is introduced, or in a quotation…, or in the phrase άπεκρίθη or before But note the hesitation of his conclusion: ‘…where the article is missing before the text always calls for scrutiny’.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 3} Ed. by Aland, K., Black, M., Metzger, B. M., and Wikgren, A. (New York: American Bible Society, 1966); hereinafter cited UGT, following I. A. Moir, N.T.S. xiv (1967–1968), 136.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 4} UGT includes the article where Nestle-Aland omit it at i. 47; iii. 23, 24; vi. 29; vii. 16; xi.21; xii. 12; xiii. 10, 21, 27, 29; xiv. 6; xvi. 19; xix. 11; xxi. 1, 5. UGT has an anarthrous text at i. 46 and xiii. 26, where Nestle-Aland include the article. (All references to Nestle-Aland in this paper cite the 25th edition.)Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 5} Bernard, loc. cit. Cf. Abbott, op. cit. p. 57 n. 1, who notes that his ‘statistics’ are doubtful ‘owing to…the weakness of B on this point’. Hoskier, H. C., whose antagonism toward Hort made him incautious, charged: ‘This perpetual slurring of the article before sometimes by sometimes by B… is not conducive to a high regard for the care and respect we should expect in these two great manuscripts of antiquity, before whom the scholars of the world today bow down and worship’ (Codex B and Its Allies, A Study and an Indictment [London, 1914], 11, 259 n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 6} See Nevius, Richard C., ‘The Use of the Definite Article with “Jesus” in the Fourth Gospel’, N.T.S. XII (1965–6), 81–5Google Scholar. Cf. the discussion by the present writer in Papyrus Bodmer II (⁶⁶)—Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics, Studies and Documents, no. 34 (Salt Lake City, 1968), pp. 52–4.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 7} Op. cit. p. 85. ‘The larger number of these instances [of anarthrous readings] seemto preclude any rational explanation, other than that we are here confronted with a subtle style which I think must be traced ultimately to the author of the Fourth Gospel rather than to the scribe of Codex Vaticanus.’Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 57–8.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 2} Cf. Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek Mew Testament (4th ed. 1923), p. 761;Google ScholarTurner, N.,op. cit. p. 167;Google ScholarNevius, R. C., The Divine Names in the Gospels, Studies and Documents, no. 30 (Salt Lake City, 1967), p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 3} Weiss (op. cit. pp. 353–4) tried to preserve this ‘rule’ for with the suggestion that proper names may also be anarthrous at the beginning of divisions (Abschnitte) of the Gospel as well. But to do so he must argue that vi. 3, rather than vi. 1, and vii. 14, rather than vii. 1, begin new divisions!Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 1} This is the reading of (W) X pc (and Nestle-Aland). UGT reads with following A L M pler. In either case the compound name is anarthrous.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 1} Cf. Weiss, op. cit. p. 352.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 2} In view of this general usage, and the fact that completely fails to follow the anaphoric principle, the comment by Turner (op. cit. p. 167), ‘E.g. the risen Christ is now 20¹⁴ on his first appearance’, seems quite irrelevant.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 1} Cf. Gildersleeve, B. L. and Miller, C. W. E., Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes, part ii, par. 554, p. 243. ‘As with common nouns, so with proper nouns, Prepositional Phrases sometimes show a tendency to resist the article.’Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 2} viii. 12 ; xii. 23 ; and xii. 44 ;. Cf. v. 17 where ⁷⁵ B W 1241 om. ησος.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 3} i. 48, 50; ii. io,;iii. 3, 10; iv. io, 13; vi. 29, 43; vii. 21; viii. 14; xii. 30 (om. αητοός); xiii. 7;xiv. 23. There are three other occurrences with another name than ησος (iii. 9, 27; xx. 28) and eight others with a common noun, pronoun, or no subject expressed (iv. 17; vii. 52; viii. 39, 48; ix. 30, 34, 36; xviii. 30).Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 4} UGT is arthrous at vi. 29. This decision was probably based on the evidence of B and D, which join many other manuscripts in reading the article here.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 1} For the full presentation of this judgment, see the present writer's analysis of ⁶⁶ in Studies and Documents, no. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 2} In any case all these manuscripts witness to a common phenomenon, which is almost certainly the work of one person. Either that person was a second-century scribe or the ‘author’. It seems much more likely that we are talking about an author.Google Scholar

Cf. the conclusion of Nevius, ‘The Use of the Definite Article’, p. 85. ‘Indeed, if anarthrous style were a personal idiosyncrasy of the scribes of D and B, one might expect to find more consistency in their omissions. There may indeed be some personal preference reflected here, but a case could equally be made for other manuscripts adding the article in a belief that proper names naturally should have the article.’

^{page 175 note 1} iii. 5; viii. 19,49, 54; ix. 3; xi. 9; xiii. 8, 36, 38; xviii. 8, 34, 36, 37; xix. 11. At xiii.26 UGT reads (following ⁶⁶ M W).Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 2} That άπεκρθη ησος κα επεν ατ(ῷ) is the basic form and this and άπεκρίθη ησος ‘broken’ patterns is supported by the fact that the manuscript tradition tends to go toward the former from the latter, but seldom vice versa. ⁶⁶, for example, reverts to the apparently basic form at x. 34 and xviii. 37, but never goes in the other direction. Various uncials add καì επεν [ατ(ῷ)] at iii. 5; vi. 70; viii. 19, 49; ix. 3; x. 32, 34; xiii. 26, 38; xviii.23; xix. 11. On the other hand, the omission of these words in instances where almost all manuscripts read them occurs only at iii. 3 and xii. 30 in singular readings of , and in xiii. 7 in a singular reading of Codex 33.Google ScholarThis direction of change is quite opposite the ‘Atticizing’ tendency for which Kilpatrick, G. D. has argued in regard to this idiom (see ‘Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament’, Neutestamentliche Aufsätze, ed. Blinzler, J. et al. [Regensburg, 1963], p. 126). As far as the Gospel of John is concerned, Kilpatrick has apparently missed the tendency of variation on the part of the scribes.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} v. 19; vi. 26, 70; vii. 16; viii. 34; x. 25, 32, 34; xiii. 26; xvi. 31; xviii. 20, 23.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2 75} has text at only four instances (vi. 70; x. 25, 32, 34) and has the article in each instance. (It reads άπεκρíθη ησος at viii. 34.) However, the value of its witness here is quite limited, since in two of these B also reads the article, and in another B is singular.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 3 66} is also anarthrous at x. 34, but reads άπεκρíθη ησος καì ετοίς instead of άπεκνθηατοίς. ό ησος Therefore, it scarcely ‘supports’ B, as Nevius has suggested (‘The Use of the Definite Article’, p. 84).Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 4} But not with ωάννης at i. 26. UGT makes an unusual turnabout at vi. 7. At xviii. 37 it follows the better manuscripts against the Johannine idiom, while here it follows the more common Johannine idiom against the better manuscript evidence (⁷⁵ A B D pler).Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 5} Op. cit. p. 57 n. 2. The difficulty with this suggestion of course is that the basic idiom already has an ατος or αύτῷ. The problem is one of word order alone, not the presence or absence of the pronoun.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 1} Whereas Nestle-Aland and UGT agree in their text on the άπεκρίθη αύτ(ῷ) [ό] ησος idiom, here there are five differences. In each case UGT reads an article where Nestle-Aland is anarthrous. They agree on an anarthrous text in four instances (viii. 58; xx. 15, 16, 17).Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 2} i. 43; ii. 4, 7; iv. 7, 17, 21, 26, 34, 50; v. 8; vi. 35; viii. 25, 39, 42, 58; ix. 37, 41; x. 6(not direct discourse); xi. 14, 23, 25, 40, 44; xiii. 10, 29; xiv. 6, 9; xx. 15, 16, 17, 29; xxi. 10, 12, 15, 17, 22.

^{page 177 note 3} vi. 32, 53; vii. 6; xii. 35; xiii. 27; xx. 21; xxi.

^{page 177 note 4} vii. 33; viii. 28; x. 7; xii. 7.

^{page 177 note 5} iv. 48; vi. 67; viii. 31; xviii. n.

^{page 177 note 6} vi. 10; ix. 39; xi. 39; xiii. 31.

^{page 177 note 7} It may be of interest to note that the phenomenon of anarthrous readings does not occur in the Neutral tradition until vi. 53, and thereafter occurs in earnest from ch. viii on. Apparently either the author or a very early scribe began to show less care—or consistency—by regularly dropping the article as he proceeded further into the Gospel.

^{page 177 note 8} Weiss thinks otherwise (op. cit. p. 354): ‘Dagegen ist es undenkbar, dass, während über 50 mal είπεν ό ίησ. steht, 8, 58, wo der Artikel in B C so leicht nach dem cturols abfiel… der Artikel fehlen kann.’

^{page 178 note 1} The most obvious illustration of this is found at vi. 26, where all the words of the basic άπεκρίθη ησος are found, but are in the order άπεκρίθη αύοίς κα επεν. All manuscripts except have the article here; whereas the manuscript evidence favours the anarthrous text whenever the subject immediately follows the verb.Google ScholarSee also the various occurrences of proper names in δτι-clauses (see below, pp. 180–2).Google ScholarIn every instance where the proper name either precedes or immediately follows the verb it is anarthrous. In the single instance where ησος follows the verb, but not immediately (vi. 22), the name is articular. Weiss's reasons for this articular occurrence seem to be a case of special pleading (op. cit. p. 353).Google ScholarCf. Colwell, E. C., ‘A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament’, J.B.L. LII (1933), 13Google Scholar, where he suggests that his ‘rule’ was discovered on the basis of word order.

^{page 178 note 2} This means participles as well as main verbs. It was found that when ησος is used with a participle and a verb, and the participle precedes the verb, usage of the article with ησος appears to be controlled by its relationship with the participle rather than the verb.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 1} iv. 6; v. 13; xi. 41, 54; xii. 1, 23; xix. g (perhaps also at v. 17).Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 2} vi. 15; viii. 59; xi. 33, 38; xii. 44; xviii. 4; xix. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 3} This was noted by Weiss, op. cit. p. 354, but he failed to note that this is the regular Johannine pattern whenever the subject precedes the verb.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 4} These same patterns also hold true with other personal names in John. Thus ό ον ούδας (xviii. 3); ό δέ Λάαρος (xii. 2); ή αν Μάρθα (xi. 20); ή ον Μάριάμ (xi. 32; xii.3); ό δέ Πέτρος (xviii. 16); but ωάννης μαρτυρεί (xii. 15) ότι τι ωννης μαρεί (i. 15); τι ωάννης…έποίησεν (x. 41);Λάαρος άπέθανεν (xi. 14); Μαριάμ δέ…(xi. 20; xx. ii). Only at xii. 2 (κα ή Μάρθα διηκόνει) is the pattern broken ( om. ή); but Μάρα regularly takes the article in John, Whatever the idiom.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 5} Cf. the Synoptics. The article is read at Mark vi. 17 and Matt. iii. 4. Luke has two anarthrous readings (iii. 23; xxiv. 15).Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 6} iv. 1, 47; v. 15; vi. 24; vii. 39; xi. 20; xx. 14, 31; xxi. 4 (ηασος is a predicate noun at v. 15; xx. 14; xxi. 4). In each instance ηασος is also the first word after ότι.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 7} See Matt. ii. 22; iv. 12; xvii. 12; xix. 8; xx. 30; Mark vi. 15; Luke ix. 7, 8; Acts ix. 38.Google ScholarThis clearly distinguishable pattern may throw light on the Johannine usage of μεσσας at iv. 25 (οίδα δτι μεσσας έρεται). This clause, of course, may mean nothing more than ‘I know there is a Messiah coming’ (so Brown, R. E. in the Anchor Bible, vol. 29, p. 167)Google Scholar. But on the basis of the Johannine habit to have an anarthrous proper name in such a clause, an equally strong case may be made to support the suggestion of Bernard (loc. cit.): ‘Messiah is here without the article, and the title may have been used as a kind of proper name.’

^{page 179 note 8} It is interesting to note further that whenever any of the major manuscripts invert the word order from verb-subject to subject-verb, they invariably keep the Johannine idiom. Thus ⁶⁶ D read ησος έληλύει for έληλύθει ό ης at xi. 30; D ησος έμελλεν for έμελλεν ησος at xi. 51; A L X 33 pc ησος ρεται for έρεται for έρεται [ό] εσος at xii. 12; and ⁶⁶ B εσος είδώς for εδώς ό ησος at xix. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 1} Except at vi. 42, where ησος is followed by an appositive.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 1} Cf. ix. 39. But I agree with C. Porter that this passage is not part of the original text of John. See ‘John ix. 38, 39a: A Liturgical Addition to the Text’, N.T.S. xiii (1966–7), 387–94.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1} Weiss (op. cit. p. 354) also hints at such a possibility, but rejects it—on the grounds that 'ησο is also anarthrous following (άποκρνεται (xiii. 38) as well as άπεκρθη!Google Scholar