49
77ο VII. 50—53.
γινώσκων τὸν νόµον, ἐπικατάρατοί1 eiot.” 5ο. Λέγει Νικόδημος
πρὸς αὐτοὺς, ὁ ἐλθὼν νυκτὸς 3 πρὸς αὐτὸν, els dv ἐξ αὐτῶν, 51. “MH tMt.xv.:1 6 νόµος ἡμῶν κρίνει "τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ παρ αὐτοῦ
4 4 - , a 325 > - πρότερον;ὃ καὶ γνῷ τί ποιεῖ;. 52. ᾽Απεκρίθησαν καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ,
υᾳ Kings x. Μὴ καὶ σὺ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ef; " ἐρεύνησον καὶ ide, ὅτι προ- 23. , ~ , 3 πε) » A 3 ΄ φήτης ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας οὐκ ἐγήγερται.” 53. Καὶδ ἐπορεύθη
a 3 4 © “ εκαστος εις τὸν οἶκον αὑτοῦ.
‘ erapatot adopted by T.Tr.W.H.R. as in NB 1, 33, and as the word appears in the classics; but T.R. gives the word as used by the Sept. and in Gal. iii. 14.
2 yuxros omitted by Tr.W.H.R.; W.H. read ο ελθων προς αντον προτερον; Tisch. omits the clause altogether ; MS. authority is divided.
ὅπρωτον in SBDKL 1, 33.
4 εγειρεται read by T.Tr.W.H.R. after BDK it. vulg. Pesh. syr. Aegypt. Goth. Arm. Aeth.
5 The closing words of the chapter, και επορευθη εκαστος εις τον οικον αντον, belong to the next paragraph, which is rejected by recent editors, and ends with ver. II of chap. vili. at the words µηκετι αµαρτανε. The entire paragraph is awanting in NABCL (A and C are imperfect at this part, but a calculation of space required shows they cannot have contained the passage) ; about seventy cursives ; a, f, q, Theb. Goth., best Pesh. MSS., Memph., Arm.; Chrys., Cyr.-Alex. The paragraph is first found in Codex Bezae, after which it appears in several uncials and more than 300 cursives, in b*, c,e; Vulg., Syr.-Hier., Aeth., etc. The Greek commentators, Origen, Theodor. Mops., Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, pass it by, and Euthymius, although he comments on it, expressly says that in accurate MSS. η ουχ ευρηται η ὠβελισται. It rather interrupts the narrative at this point, and besides contains several words not elsewhere found in John: ορθρου, ο λαος, οι γραμµατεις, αναµαρτητος. At the same time the incident may well be a genuine tradition, and, as Calvin says, ‘‘nihil apostolico spiritu indignum continet,” and therefore ‘‘non est cur eam in usum nostrum accommodare recusemus”. See further in Spitta, Zur Gesch, d. Urchristentums, i. 194; Conybeare’s article
in Expositor, 5th series, ii. 405.
the clause 6 ἐλθὼν νυκτὸς πρὸς αὐτόν, and no doubt it has quite the appearance of a gloss. At the same time it is John’s manner thus to identify persons named. And at xix. 39 the similar clause is not deleted.] This was a bold step. For he must have known it was useless; and he might have persuaded himself to evade all risk by silence. His remon- strance is based on their implied claim to know the law: μὴ 6 vépos . . . ποιεῖ; their own action is suspiciously like a violation of the law. ‘‘ Does our law pass judgment on the suspected person before it first hears him and knows what he is guilty of doing?” For the law regarding trials see Deut. i. 16 and Stapfer’s Palestine, p. 108, on the ad- ministration of justice. The construc- tion is simple; ‘‘the law” which the Sanhedrim administered is the nomina- tive throughout.—Ver. 52. This τε- monstrance is exasperatingly true, and turns the bitterness of the Pharisaic party on Nicod mus, μὴ καὶ...
ἐγήγερται. ‘Art thou also, as well as Jesus, from Galilee, and thus dis- posed to befriend your countryman?” Cf. Mk. xiv. 70. By this they betray that their own hostility was a merely personal matter, and not founded on careful examination. ‘‘ Search and see, because [or ‘that ’] out of Galilee there arises no prophet.”’ That is, as Westcott interprets, ‘‘ Galilee is not the true country of the prophets : we cannot look for Messiah to come from thence’’. They overlooked the circumstance that one or two exceptions to this rule ex- isted.