28—35.
ἐμαυτοῦ, ἡ paptupia µου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής.
743
32. " ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ ε viii. 18.
μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμοῦ, καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία ἣν
μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ.
33- “ Ὑμεῖς ἀπεστάλκατε πρὸς Ἰωάννην, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκε ἕτῇ Εαν. 37. ἀληθείᾳ: 34. ἐγὼ δὲ οὗ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν µαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω, ¢ Perri 17 Ἰ
ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε.
καιόµενος καὶ " φαίνων, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠθελήσατε ἀγαλλιασθῆναι ) πρὸς
1 αγαλλιαθηναι in NAD; T.R. in BL,
rebus homines amplissimi testimonium de sua re non dicerent” (Cicero, pro Roscio, 36, Wetstein). Grotius says: ‘Romani dicunt neminem idoneum testem esse in re sua”. But how can Jesus say that if His witness stands alone it is not true? Chrysostom says He speaks not absolutely but with reference to their suspicion [πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων ὑπόνοιαν]. And on occasion He can maintain that His testimony of Himself is true, chap. viii. 13, where He says ‘“‘ Though I witness of myself my witness is true,’ and demands that He be considered one of the two witnesses required. Here the point of view is different, and He means: Were I stand- ing alone, unauthenticated by the Father, my claims would not be worthy of credit. But ἄλλος ἐστὶν 6 μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμοῦ (on the definite predicate with indefinite subject vide Winer, p. 136). “It is another that beareth witness of me,” namely, the Father [σημαίνει τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ὄντα θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα, Cyril, Melanchthon, and the best modern interpreters, Holtzmann, Weiss, West- cott]. Grotius, following Chrysostom and Euthymius, says “ facillimum est ut de Johanne sumamus, quia de eo sunt quae proxime sequuntur’’. Against this is (1) the disclaimer of John’s testimony, ver. 34; (2) and especially the accentu- ated opposition of ὑμεῖς, νετ. 33, and ἐγώ, ver. 34. For other reasons, see Liicke. Of this witness Jesus says οἶδα ὅτι ... ἐμοῦ. Why this addition? Is it an overflow of satisfaction in the unassail- able position this testimony gives Him ? Rather it is the offset to the supposition made in νετ, 31, ‘‘my witness is not true’’. [Cyril’s interpretation is in- exact, but suggestive: μονονουχὶ τοῦτο διδάσκων, ὅτι Θεὸς dv ἀληθινὸς, οἶδα, φησὶν, ἐμαυτὸν, κεχαρισµένον δὲ οὐδὲν 6 Πατὴρ épet περὶ ἐμοῦ.]--Ψετ. 33. Before exhibiting the Father’s testimony Jesus meets them on their own ground: ὑμεῖς, ye yourselves, ἀπεστάλκατε πρὸς
35. ἐκεῖνος ἦν ἔὁ λύχνος ὁ vi. 20. h Phil. ii. 15. Mt. ii. 7.
Ἰωάννην, sent, by the deputation men- tioned chap. i., to John; which they would not have done had they not thought him trustworthy (Euthymius). The perfect is used, indicating that the result continued; as the perfect μεμαρτύρηκε indicates that ‘‘the testimony preserves its value notwithstanding the disappear- ance of the witness”.—rq ἀληθείᾳ to the truth, especially of the Messianic dignity of Jesus.—Ver. 34. ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ . . . but for my part I do not depend upon a man’s testimony. In what sense is this to be taken? In iii. 11 λαμβάνειν τὴν µαρτυρίαν means ‘‘to credit testi- mony,” but this sense does not satisfy the present use. Grotius says, ‘ Hic λαμβάνω est requiro, ut infra 41, 44, ubi in opposito membro ponitur ζητεῖν ut idem valens’’. So too Liicke. Godet and Westcott prefer to emphasise the article, ‘the testimony,” ‘‘ the only real, infallible, unexceptionable testimony,” I do not accept from man. The sense is: You sent to John and he testified to the truth; but the testimony which I for my part accept and rely upon is not that of aman. The testimony which con- firms Him in the consciousness that He is God’s messenger is not a human but a Divine testimony.—éAAa ταῦτα λέγω but this I say, that is, this regarding the truth of John’s testimony I now mention ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε, for your sakes, not for my own, that even on a man’s testimony you may be induced to believe.—Ver. 35. ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος 6 καιόµενος καὶ φαίνων, ‘He was (suggesting that now the Baptist was dead) the lamp that burneth and shineth”’.—6é Ἀύχνος: for the difference between λύχνος a lamp and λαμπάς a torch, see Trench, Synonyms, p. 154, and cf. λαμµπαδη- δροµία the Athenian torch-race. The article ‘simply marks the familiar piece of household furniture” (Westcott). ‘“The article simply converts the image into a definition’’ (Godet). ‘‘ The article points him out as the definite light which