Him not; but he states the fact in two distinct and indepen- f snt propositions: “ He was in the world, and the world knew Jim not.” So in viii. 20. Jesus spake in the treasury, teach- ing in the temple, and yet, though He appeared and taught thus publicly, no one laid hands on Him. John writes: “These words spake Jesus as He taught in the temple, and no man laid hands on Him.” He uses and, where the antithetic but might be expected (i. 5; iii. 11; xv. 24). There is also a frequent absence of connecting particles. There is not, for in- stance, a single one in the first seventeen verses of ch. xv. Out of the wealth of Greek particles, John uses only five. He abounds in contrasts or antithetic parallelisms without connect- ing links. Thus, “the law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ ” (i. 17): ‘No one ever saw God: the only-begotten Son revealed Him” (i. 18). Compare viii. 23 ; xv. 5, etc. This simple co-ordination of clauses is assisted by the repetition of a marked word or phrase, so that a connection between two statements is established and the idea carried for- ward in a new direction (see x. 11; xv. 13 sqq.; xv. 1, 5; xvii. 14 sqq.; vi. 39, 40, 44).
The narrative is direct. Even the words of others are given directly and not obliquely. Instead of saying “ This is the wit- ness of John when the Jews sent to ask him who he was, and he confessed that he was not the Christ ”—John says, “ This is the witness of John when the Jews sent to ask him Who art thou ? and he confessed J am not the Christ” (i.19). Compare vii. 40 sqq. ; ii. 3 sqq.; iv. 24 sqq.; v. 10 sqq.; vi. 14; vill. 22; x. 2sqq. Illustrative details are not wrought into the texture of the narrative, but are interjected as parentheses or distinct statements (see vi. 10; iv. 6; x. 22; xiii. 30; xviii. 40). John’s style is circumstantial. An action which, by other writ- ers, is stated as complex, is analyzed by him and its components stated separately. Thus, instead of the usual Greek idiom, «“ Jesus answering said,” John writes, “Jesus answered and said,” thus making both factors of the act equally prominent (see xii. 44; vii. 28; i. 15, 25). This peculiarity is further il- lustrated by the combination of the positive and negative ex- pression of the same truth (see i. 3, 20; ii. 245 iii. 16; x. 5;