The second class of interpreters, who construe the passage
affirmatively, vary in their explanations of t7v dpyny, which they render severally, altogether, essentially, jirst of all, im the begin- ning. There is also a third class, who take ty dpynv as a noun, and explain according to Apoc. xxi. 6, “J wm the begin- ning, that which I am even saying unto you.” This view is represented mostly by the older commentators, Augustine, Bede, Lampe, and later by Wordsworth.
I adopt the view of Alford, who renders essentially, explain- ing by generally, or traced up to its principle (apxn). Shad- ing off from this are Godet, absolutely ; Winer, throughout ; Thayer, wholly or precisely. I render, J am essentially that which I even speak to you. Tf we accept the explanation of / am, in ver. 24, as a declaration of Jesus’ absolute divine being, that thought prepares the way for this interpretation of His answer to the question, Who art thow? His words are the revelation of Himself. ‘He appeals to His own testimony as the adequate expression of His nature. They have only to fathom the series of statements He has made concerning Him- self, and they will find therein a complete analysis of His mis- sion and essence” (Godet).*
26. | have many things, etc. The connection of thought seems to be as follows: “I being such as my words show me to be, I must declare the whole message of Him by virtue of my essential union with whom I speak. Many things I have to declare and judge, and you may turn a deaf ear to them;
*TIam aware of the objection to this rendering based on the canon that thy apxi has this meaning only in negative sentences, an objection which is certainly not parried by Godet’s attempt to explain this passage as essentially negative. But this rule is not absolutely universal (see Thayer’s Lexicon, épxh, 1, b.), and this explanation seems to me, on the whole, to fall in better than any other with the general sense of the passage as I understand it. I always differ from Canon Westcott with reluctance; but without going so far as to say, with Alford, that his interpretation is ungrammatical, 1 must confess that it seems to me artificial and forced, as also does Meyer’s rendering, which is open besides to serious criticism on grammatical grounds. The student will find the different interpretations well summed up and classified in Schaff’s Lange, and also more briefly in Westcott’s additional note to ch, viii. See also Meyer.