Father-in-law (sevSepds). Only here in the New Testa- ment.
That same year. See on xi. 49. 15. Followed (jKorovder). Imperfect, was following.
The other disciple. The correct reading omits the article. Another. Probably John himself.
Palace (aianv). Not palace, but court, as Rev. See on Matt. xxvi. 3; Luke xi. 21.
16. Stood. Properly, was standing.
Door. The door opening from the street into the court. Her that kept the door (r7 Jupwpe). See on x. 3.
17. The damsel (% wraditonn). See on Acts xii. 18.
Art thou (“7 od). The question is put in a negative form, as if expecting a negative answer: thou art not, art thou ?
Also. Showing that she recognized John as a disciple.
18. Stood. It is discouraging to see how the A. V. habitu- ally ignores the imperfect tense, and thus detracts from the liveliness of the narrative. Render, as Rev., were standing.
Fire of coals (avSpaxiav). Only here and xxi. 9. Matthew does not mention the fire. Mark has 76 $ds, strictly, the light of the fire. Luke says they had kindled a jire (zip).
Warmed. Rev., correctly, were warming. So, ver. 25, was standing and was warming, for stood and warmed.
19-24. Compare Matt. xxvi. 59-68; Mark xiv. 55-65; Luke xxii. 63-71.
19. Asked (npwrtncev). Or, questioned.
GOSPEL OF JOHN. 271 Doctrine (didax7js). Rev., better, teaching.
20. In the synagogue (év 7 cuvaywyf). The best texts omit the article. Render, in synagogue: when the people were assembled. Like our phrase, in church.
Always resort (1ravtote cuvépyovtat). For rdvtore always, read mdvtes all. uvépyovrar is rather come together, assemble. Rev., where all the Jews come together.
22. Struck—with the palm of his hand (édwxe pdmicpa). Lit., gave a blow. Interpreters differ as to whether it was a blow with a rod, or with the hand. The kindred verb parifw, from paris, a rod, is etymologically related to paSd/fw, from paBbdos, a rod, and occurs Matt. v. 89, of sméting on the cheek, and Matt. xxvi. 67, where it is distinguished from xoradige, to strike with the fist. This latter passage, however, leaves the question open, since, if the meaning to smite with a rod can be defended, there is nothing to prevent its being understood there in that sense. The earlier meaning of the word was, un- doubtedly, according to its etymology, to smite with a rod. So Herodotus of Xerxes. “It is certain that he commanded those who scourged (parifovras) the waters (of the Hellespont) to utter, as they lashed them, these barbarian and wicked words” (vii., 35). And again: “The Corinthian captain, Adeimantus, observed, ‘ Themistocles, at the games they who start too soon are scourged (pamifovras)’” (viii., 59). It passes, in classical Greek, from this meaning to that of a light blow with the hand. The grammarian Phrynichus (a.p. 180) condemns the use of the word in the sense of striking with the hand, or slap- ping, as not according to good Attic usage, and says that the proper expression for a blow on the cheek with the open hand is él Képpns watdéat. This shows that the un-Attic phrase had crept into use. In the Septuagint the word is clearly used in the sense of a blow with the hand. See Isa. 1. 6: “I gave my cheeks to blows (eis pamricuata). Hos. xi. 4, “ As a man that smiteth (pamdfwv) upon his cheeks” (A. V. and Rev., that take off the yoke on their jaws). In 1 Kings xxii. 24, we read,