785
16. Ἔλεγον
οὖν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων τινὲς, “| Οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος obk ἔστι παρὰ | 7. 16.
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι τὸ σάββατον οὗ |! τηρεῖ.᾽ δύναται ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλὸς τοιαῦτα σημεῖα ποιεῖν ; 17. Λέγουσι τῷ τυφλῷ πάλιν, “Ed τί λέγεις περὶ
4. > Suen oS Nv ἐν αὔτοις.
”λλλοι ἔλεγον, “Masi ΟΡ. Lev. 8 , ΧΧΥΙ. 2. Και σχισµα
αὐτοῦ, ὅτι Ἠνοιξέ σου τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς;' Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, “΄Ὅτι
προφήτης ἐστίν.
18. Οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν οὖν οἱ Ιουδαῖοι περὶ αὐτοῦ,
ὅτι τυφλὸς ἦν καὶ ἀνέβλεψεν, ἕως ὅτου ἐφώνησαν τοὺς γονεῖς αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀναβλέψαντος, 19. καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτοὺς λέγοντες, '' Οὗτός ἐστιν
ὁ vids ὑμῶν, "ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι τυφλὸς ἐγεννήθη :
βλέπει ;”
πῶς οὖν ἄρτι k viii. 54.
3 , > ο) ς ey > a ‘ 3 20. ᾿Απεκρίθησαν αὐτοῖς οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπον,
“ OiSapev ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς ἡμῶν, καὶ ὅτι τυφλὸς ἐγεννήθη : 21. πῶς δὲ νῦν βλέπει, οὐκ οἴδαμεν: ἢ τίς ἤνοιξεν αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς, ἡμεῖς οὐκ οἴδαμεν' αὐτὸς ᾽ἡλικίαν "ἔχει: αὐτὸν ΙΕρΗ.ῖν. 13.
ἐρωτήσατε, αὐτὸς περὶ αὑτοῦ λαλήσει.᾽
A ie = ~ ™ Viii. 57; 22. TauTa εἶπον οἱ yovets ερ. Job xxix. 18.
αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐφοβοῦντο τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους: ἤδη γὰρ " συνετέθειντο οἱ n Dan. ii.g.
3 ον o > ον ς a » > 4 loudator, ἵνα ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήση Χριστὸν, ἀποσυνάγωγος -
γένηται.
τηρεῖ. The miracle is not denied, rather affirmed, but it cannot be a work of God, for it has been done on Sabbath. Cf. iii. 2 and v. 16. Some of their party, however, inclined to a different conclu- sion, Πῶς . . . ποιεῖν; Howcan such a work be done at all, whether on Sabbath or any other day, by a sinner ? This breach of the Sabbath law must admit of explanation. It cannot arise from opposition to ἀοἀ.- καὶ oxiopa ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς, as before among the people, vii. 43, 50Ο now among the authorities a pronounced and permanent cleft was apparent.—Ver. 17. Differing among themselves, they refer the question to the man, Σὺ τί λέγεις .. . ‘You, what do you say about Him, on account of His opening your eyes?” The question is not one of fact, but of inference from the fact; the ὅτι means “in that,” ‘“‘inasmuch as,” and the Vulgate simply renders ‘.Tu quid dicis de illo, qui aperuit oculos tuos?” Promptly the man replies, προφήτης éoriv.—Ver. 18. It now appears that their previous ad- mission of the fact of the miracle was disingenuous and that they suspected fraudulent collusion between Jesus and the man; Οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν, ‘they did not believe’’ his account (νετ. 19), ἕως ὅτου . . . βλέπει; “until they sum- moned his parents’’.—Ver. 20. To them they put virtually three questions:
- A“ A ο , 23. διὰ τοῦτο οἱ yovets αὐτοῦ εἶπον, “ Ὅτι ἡλικίαν ἔχει,
Lk. xxii. Acts XXiii. 20, χχῖν. 9.
Is this your son? Was he born blind ? (for though you say this of him, ὑμεῖς emphatic, we do not believe it). How does he now see? The first two questions they unhesitatingly answer: This is our son who was born blind. This answer explodes the idea of collusion.—Ver. 21. The third question they have not the means of answering, or as νετ, 22 in- dicates, they shammed ignorance to save themselves ; and refer the examiners to the man Πϊπιδε]{.---ἡλικίαν ἔχει, his parents are no longer responsible for him, Examples of the Greek phrase are given by Kypke and Wetstein from Plato, Aristophanes, and Demosthenes. αὐτὸς περὶ αὑτοῦ [better ἑαυτοῦ] λαλήσει.- -Ψετ. 22. Tatra. . . ἐρωτή- gate. The reluctance of the parents to answer brings out the circumstance that already the members of the Sanhedrim had come to an understanding with one another that any one who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah should be excom- municated, ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται. Of excommunication there were three degrees: the first lasted for thirty days; then followed ‘fa second admonition,” and if impenitent the culprit was punished for thirty days more; and if still im- penitent he was laid under the Cherem or ban, which was of indefinite duration, and which entirely cut him off from intercourse with others. He was treated