^{page 499 note 1} I have deliberately confined my reply to those points in Dr Derrett's article which are concerned with his estimate of my book. More could be said. Dr Derrett raises on page 8 of his article the question of accurately determining the length of time required for the act in John viii. 4 to be brought to perfection. Derrett's article would have gained in general interest if the writer had dealt in more detail with this aspect of the problem instead of passing comments on my book (comments which are impertinent in both senses of the word).

^{page 499 note *} Otto Lücke, Absolute Participia im Gothischen und ihr Verhältnis zum gr. Original, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Skeireins (Dissert. Göttingen, 1876). His retroversions cover about 126 lines of the total of 800. They were adversely criticized by Bernhardt in zitschrift für deutsche Philologie, viii (1877). 352–4.

^{page 501 note 1} John, vii. 44–5 quoted verbatim.Google Scholar

^{page 501 note 2} The genitive absolutes will stand (cf. note 23), although nominatives would be preferable, and finite verbs in order, especially with the following λθον ον.

^{page 501 note 3} Alluding to John vii. 30 ότı ούπω έληλύθεı ή ώρα αύτο̃υ.

^{page 501 note 4} Reflexive for Greek passive; cf. II Cor. i. 16 προπεμφθ̃ηναı gasandjan mik.

^{page 501 note 5} Paruh (properly = εκεί) occurs for καί also in John iii. 23; ix. 2, and Luke vii. 12, 37.

^{page 501 note 6} This is a free version of John vii. 46, adding qipandans patei (= λέγοντες ότı) and omitting ούτως. The Codex Argenteus reads άπεκριθησαν οί ύπηρέταı σύδέποτε σότως έλάληςεν άνθρωπος ώς ούτος ό άνθρωπος: andhofun pai andbahtos: ni hwanshun aiw (om. ούτως) rodida manna, swaswe sa manna.

^{page 501 note 7} Cf. D add. δέ; but pan most commonly appears for ον, as in verse 47.

^{page 501 note 8} Cf. II Tim. iii. 16 πρός έλεγχον (c. D E K L P; έλεγμόν Sin A C F G): du gasahtai; Luke ii. 32 φ̃ως εις άποκάλυψıν έθν̃ων: liuhap du andhuleinai piudom.

^{page 501 note 9} κατάκρıμα is perhaps the best equivalent of afdomeins; the alternative κατάκρıσıς appears as wargipa at II Cor. iii. 9; vii. 3, as does κατάκρıμα (+dat.) at Rom. viii. 1. The dative ungalaubeinai could be after the Greek, but is also idiomatic. See G.-L., Gram., §§ 226, 230 Anm.; E.B., § 253 2b.

^{page 501 note 10} anahaitan represents έπıκαλείσθαı ‘invoke, call upon’ (Rom. x. 13), and έπıκαλεıν only here, ‘to quarrel or dispute with; to accuse’.

^{page 501 note 11} im is irreg. for the reflexive sis.

^{page 501 note 12} The use of andsitan in the N.T. resists analysis. In the present passage ni andsitandans seems to mean ‘not being discomposed by’, ‘not fearing’, like the analogous O.H.G. intsizzen (trans.+acc.) ‘to fear’, and is comparable also to μή έκπλαχθέντες. Bernhardt wrote non respicientes illorum nequitiam increpantium se, possibly having in mind Gal. ii. 6 gup mans andwairpi ni andsitip: ºύ λαμβάνεı: non accipit, or I Cor. x. 27 μηδέν άνακρίνοντες: ni waiht andsitandans: nihil interrogantes.

^{page 501 note 13} This tautology is of the Gothic text, the intruder being jainaize after the preceding jainaim. The Greek original was probably without έκείνων.

^{page 501 note 14} allaim alamannam is not pleonastic; allaim alone would be ambiguous, being referable to either πάσαıς (δıδαχαίς) or π̃ασıν (άνθρώποıς); the complementary alamannam makes clear what is meant, and justifies the equivalent έν πα̃σıν άνθρώποıς.

^{page 501 note 15} Cf. Col. i. 18 ίνα γένηταı έν π̃ατός πρωτεύων: ei sijai in allaim is frumadein habandans: principatum tenens, which is responsible for frumadein habandans. Here faura wisan is a typical rendering of πρωτεύεıν or πρωτεύºντα. The words fraujins laisein might have led to uncertainty as to which of them faura wisan referred to, but the phrase allaim alamannam, together with the obvious reminiscence of Col. i. 18, makes it clear that our Lord is the subject, not his teaching. The text would have been improved by the addition of ina, αύτός, in the appropriate place.

^{page 501 note 16} Or ήγσ̃υντο.

^{page 501 note 17} Cf. Luke xvi. 8 εις τήν γενεάν έαυτ̃ων: in kunja seinamma.

^{page 501 note 18} Here θυμός is appropriate as indicating a flurry of temper, whereas below όργή (pwairhei) is more suitable for the deep-seated and revengeful resentment against Nicodemus: cf. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament. Gothic observes the same distinction in Eph. iv. 31 π̃αοα πıκρία καί θυμός και όργή: alla baitrei jah hatis jah pwairhei. In note 20 it is suggested that the passage mip baitrein pwairheins would be better placed at the end of column d.

^{page 501 note 19} This quotation from John vii. 47–9 agrees with the Codex Argenteus text except for pize² which is after the preceding Pize reike; sai, as in the C.A., is a Gothic additament, against Greek and Latin authority, as in Mark i. 12 και εύθύς: jah suns sai.

^{page 501 note 20} The plural here is significant, referring to both the angry replies, and the sentence would be better placed at the end of the last column after the words μή καί σύ σύ έκ τ̃ης Γ αλıλαίας εί; έρεύνησον καί ιδε ότı…. The words ου̃το δέ occur a number of times, but the plural τα̃υτα δέ only twice in the Gothic N.T., where they are represented by patuh pan, because of the Gothic predilection for the sing. form of the pronoun even where the Greek has the plural, thus John xii. 16 ταυ̃τα δέ: patch pan; II Cor. 19 τά δέ: patuh pan.

^{page 501 note 21} hatiza, pwairhein: see note 18.

^{page 501 note 22} liugan cannot have any other meaning but ‘to utter a falsehood’ and liugandans is here an erroneous rendering of an original έψενσμένοı or ψευσθέντες ‘deceived, mistaken’, which the translator did not distinguish from ψευδόμενοı (see N.T.S. IX, 54). The Chief Priests and Pharisees were not lying, not being then aware that Nicodemus, ‘being one of them’, had become an admirer and secret adherent of the Rabbi from Galilee. Bigitanda doubtless renders ηύρέθησαν, the Gothic having only the present tense of the passive or, alternatively, a periphrastic form, to represent a Greek aorist passive.

^{page 501 note 23} It is possible to match the Gothic dative participles with gen. abs. pples in Greek by taking them closely with έψευσμένοı ηύρέθησαν ‘in which they were found to be mistaken, when Nicodemus…argued…and said…’. It would have been more elegant if the Greek had read ός κατά τήντρόθεσıν θεού λθον πρός, but the original may have made excessive use of the gen. abs. phrase, as does Eusebius of Caesarea constantly; indeed, in one passage of the Eccl. Hist., III. v. 2–3 (Ίουδαιων…δικη…μετᾐεı…άφανíʒουσα), there are eleven circumstantial participles, ten of which are gen. abs., attendant upon one finite verb.

^{page 501 note 24} Nicodemus's ‘boldness’ was referred to in Skeir. II faur ina balpeip = ύπέρ αυτόν τολμᾷ. This is a historic present = έτόλμησεν and accounts for the Gothic present tense.

^{page 501 note 25} Cf. faur ina rodjands below (d 17); here faur sunja is perhaps reminiscent of John xiv. 6 ή όδός καί ή άλήθεια.

^{page 501 note 26} These letters were identified and explained by Bennett, W. H. (The Gothic Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 106).Google Scholar The letters k t l represent the Greek κ.τ.λ., and jah los is an abbreviation of jah laibos, a literal rendering of κ.τ.λ. The words jah los conclude the third column (c); the interpolated passage, discussed separately below, commences the last column (d).

^{page 501 note 27} Cf. b 21–2 balpein ize ni uspulandans. I write έκείνοı rather than of because Skeireins reflects Johannine usage, which favours ήκείνος.

^{page 501 note 28} Cf. a 25–b2 soh pan andahafts du gasahtai, and see note 8. po is emphatic, almost = το̃υτον τόνέλεγον.

^{page 501 note 29} John vii. 52 begins with άπεκρίθησαν καί είπον αύτῷ andhofun jah gepun du imma.

^{page 501 note 30} iba…patei continues the quotation verbatim, with iba, ussoke as graphic variants of the normal ibai, ussokei. I have added the remaining part of verse 52, which no doubt commenced the following leaf.

^{page 501 note 31} poh…rodidedun = c 9–11 which I have transferred as being more appropriate here; see note 20. The sentence also interrupts the natural sequence of what precedes and follows it.

^{page 502 note 1} Ni frapjands can here only mean ‘not knowing’. In the N.T. frapjan represents γıνώσκείν, νοείνσυνıέναı in this general sense, and ψρονείν where the Latin has sapere or sentire.

^{page 502 note 2} The position of sokun creates a difficulty; as it stands, it should be the main verb and ni frapjandans its adjunct: ‘They were arguing in ignorance, because (or: for)…’; if it were placed first, ni frapjandans would go with patei: ‘They argued not knowing that….’ The causal use of patei is exemplified in John x. 33; xv 5.

^{page 502 note 3} raihtis…jah ² are correlatives answering to μέν…καί (for μέν…δέ) as in Mark iv. 4; Luke viii. 5; Rom. x. 1.

^{page 502 note 4} ustaiknips could also mean ‘was designated’ (Bernhardt has selectum) as in Luke x. I άνέδεıξεν: ustaiknida: designavit; the position of was is abnormal, it ought to come next after its participle.

^* See N.T.S. K, 54 and note.