782
by.5
οὕπω ” ἔχεις, καὶ ᾽Αβραὰμ. ἑώρακας; ἑ᾽αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν ᾽Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι.”
58. Εἶπεν αὐτοῖς 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς,
99-
εν.ο. Κεν. Ἠραν οὖν λίθους ἵνα βάλωσιν ἐπ αὐτόν: “Ingots δὲ 4 ἐκρύβη,
XViii. 21.
d xii. 36.
a Mk. i. 16; oUTwS.! ii.14. Mt. ix. 9.
b Lev. xxv. 47:
1Omit διελθων . ..
“Fifty years” may be used as a round number, sufficiently exact for their pur- pose and with no intention to determine the age of Jesus. But Lightfoot (Hor. Heb., 1046) thinks the saying is ruled by the age when Levites retired, see Num. iv. 3, 39: “Τα non adhuc pervenisti ad vulgarem annum _ superannuationis, et tune vidisti Abrahamum?” Irenaeus (ii. 22, 5) records that the Gospel (pre- sumably this passage) and the Presbyters of Asia Minor who had known John, testified that Jesus taught till He was forty or fifty. This idea is upheld by E. v. Bunsen (Hidden Wisdom of Christ), and even Keim is of opinion that Jesus may have lived to His fortieth year.— Ver. 58. The misunderstanding of His words elicits from Jesus the statement: πρὶν Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι. ‘ Before Abraham was born Iam.” ‘‘ Antequam Abraham fieret, Ego sum,” Vulgate. Plummer aptly compares Ps. xc. 2, πρὸ τοῦ Spy γενηθῆναι .. . σὺ el. Before Abraham came into existence I am, eternally existent. No stronger affirma- tion of pre-existence occurs, and Beyschlag’s subtle attempt to evade the meaning is unsuccessful.—Ver. 59. What the Jews thought of the asser- tion appeared in their action: ἡραν . αὐτόν. Believing that He was speaking sheer blasphemy and claiming equality with the great ‘“‘I Am,” they sought to stone Him. For this purpose there was material ready to hand even in the Temple court, for, as Lightfoot reminds us, the building was still going on. “A stoning in the temple is mentioned by Josephus, Axt., xvii. 9, 3, Meyer.— "Ingots δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν. “ But Jesus went out unperceived’’; on this usage vide Winer, and cf. Thayer. Why it should be supposed that there is any- thing miraculous or doketic in this (Holtzmann and others) does not appear. Many in the crowd would favour the escape of Jesus. The remaining words of the chapter are omitted by recent editors
καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, διελθὼν διὰ µέσου αὐτῶν: καὶ παρῆγεν
IX. 1. Καὶ "παράγων εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς. 2. καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοντες “΄ Ῥαββὶ, τίς
οντω as in SBD vet. Lat. vulg. T.R. is found in ΝΕΑΟΙ.,
CHapTER ΙΧ. 1—X. 22. The healing of a man born blind and the discussions arising out of this miracle.
Vv. 1-7. The cure narrated.—Ver. 1. Καὶ παράγων. ‘And as He passed by,” possibly, as Meyer and Holtz- mann suppose, on the occasion just mentioned (viii. 59), and as He passed the gate of the Temple where beggars congregated; but the definite mention that it was a Sabbath (ver. 14) rather indicates that it was mot the same day. See on x. 22.--εἶδεν . . . γενετῆς. “He saw a man blind from birth,” an aggravation which plays a prominent part in what follows. And first of all it so impresses the disciples that they ask τίς . . . γεννηθῇ; Their question im- plies a belief, repudiated by Jesus here and in Lk. xiii. 1-5, that each particular sickness or sorrow was traceable to some particular sin; see Job passim and Weber’s Lehren d. Talmud, p. 235. Theis question seems also to imply that they supposed even a natal defect might be the punishment of the individual’s own sin. This has received five different explanations: (1) that the pre-existence of souls had been deduced from Wisd. viii. 20, ‘‘ being good, I came into a body undefiled”; (2) that metempsychosis was held by some Jews (so Calvin, Beza, and see Lightfoot, p. 1048); or (3) that the unborn babe might sin, see Gen. xxv. 26, Lk. i. 41-44; or (4) that the punishment was anticipatory of the sin ; or (5) that the question was one of sheer bewilderment, putting all conceivable possibilities, but without attaching any very definite meaning to the one branch of the alternative. A combination of the two last seems to fit the mental attitude of the disciples. The alternative that the man suffered for his parents’ sin was an idea which would naturally suggest itself. See Exod. xx. 5, etc.—tva τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ; ἵνα expresses result, not pur- pose ; and the form of expression is “‘ the product of false analogy, arising from