C.F. Burney (1868-1925), _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922), 176pp., on 6-7, 63-65, with colons for superscripted Bible citations
https://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Origin-Fo...331633184/
https://archive.org/details/aramaicorigi...up?q=casus
So with other stylistic peculiarities of the Gospel, such as the frequent use of _Casus pendens_.
This, Prof. Moulton tells us, ‘is one of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English as in Greek’ (_NTG_.^3 i, p. 69).
We recognize the truth of this statement as regards colloquial English, especially among the semi-educated.
We might be talking to a groom, and it would be natural for him to say,
‘The gentleman who used to ride that horse-- he lost his arm in the war.’
Probably at times we use the same kind of anacoluthon ourselves in ordinary conversation ;
but we do _not_ use it in writing a book or article which we hope may be worthy to rank as literature.
Nor, if we take the whole New Testament as a fair specimen of literature written in the Κοινή, do we find as a rule more than very occasional instances of the usage.
In the Fourth Gospel, however, it _is_ remarkably frequent ;
and it is reasonable to seek some better reason than the supposition that the writer of the finest piece of literature in the New Testament was more than ordinarily infected with colloquialism.
Now there is a literature in which both the usages which we have been noticing-- parataxis and _Casus pendens_-- are not the marks of lack of education but common phenomena of the best writing style, namely, the literature of Semitic-speaking peoples.
If, then, these two characteristics of the style of the Fourth Gospel, only selected by way of example, fit in with numerous other characteristics which point to translation from a Semitic language, their evidence as part of our proof that the Gospel is such a translation is not in the slightest degree invalidated by the fact that parallels can be adduced from the non-literary and ephemeral type of document which we find represented in the papyri.
As a matter of fact, we have little cause to quarrel with Prof. Moulton at any rate in the course which is followed in our discussion of the language of the Fourth Gospel, for he lays down a canon which covers a great part of the characteristics which are brought forward.
‘If we are seeking’, he says, ‘for evidences of Semitic birth in a writer whose Greek betrays deficient knowledge of the resources of the language, we must not look only for uses which strain or actually contravene the Greek idiom.
We shall find a subtler test in the over-use of locutions which can be defended as good Κοινή Greek, but have their motive clearly in their coincidences with locutions of the writer’s native tongue.
This test of course applies only to Greek which is virtually or actually translated-- to the Hebraism of the LXX and the Aramaism of New Testament books which are either translated from Aramaic sources or written by men who thought in Aramaic and moved with little freedom in Greek.’^* [*: _Cambridge Biblical Essays_, p. 474]
It is precisely this over-use of locutions coincident with locutions of Aramaic which will repeatedly be found to characterize the Greek of the Fourth Gospel.
...
Casus pendens.
It is characteristic of Hebrew and Aramaic to simplify the construction of a sentence, and at the same time to gain emphasis, by reinforcing the subject by a Personal Pronoun.
Such reinforcement is specially favoured if the subject happens to be further defined by a relative clause, since otherwise the sentence would-- to the Semitic ear-- appear involved and overweighted.
The same principle is also adopted with the object, when this, for the sake of emphasis, is brought to the beginning of the sentence ;
and other oblique cases may be similarly treated.
Examples in Hebrew are--
Gen. 3:12, ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me (...) of the tree and I did eat’;
Gen. 15:4, ‘But one that shall come out of thine own bowels, he shall be thine heir’ (...);
Gen. 24:7, ‘Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house, &c., He shall send (...) His angel before thee’;
Deut. 13:1, ‘All the word that I command you, it shall ye observe to do’ (...);
Ezek. 18:24, ‘In his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die’ (...).
See further, Driver, _Tenses_, § 123 γ _Obs_.
Similarly in Aramaic--
Dan. 2:37, 38, ‘Thou, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven gave, &c., thou art that head of gold’ (...);
Dan. 3:22, ‘Those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, the flame of the fire slew them’ (...);
Dan. 4:17-19, ‘The tree that thou sawest, &c., it is thou, O king’ (...);
Ezr. 5:14, ‘And moreover, the vessels of the house of God, &c., them did Cyrus the king take out (...) of the temple of Babylon’;
Ezr. 7:24, ‘All priests and Levites, &c., it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, &c., upon them’ (...);
Ezr. 7:26, ‘Every one that will not perform the law of thy God and the law of the king, let judgement diligently be executed upon him’ (...).
This reinforcement of a _Casus pendens_ by the Pronoun is a marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel.
We may note the following illustrations :
1:12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι.
1:18 μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
1:33 ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν.
3:26 ὃς ἦν μετὰ cod... ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει.
3:32 ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ.
5:11 Ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν.
5:19 ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ.
5:36 τὰ γὰρ ἔργα ἃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτά, αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιῶ, μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι ὃ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν (we should surely omit the comma after ποιῶ, and make αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα the subject of μαρτυρεῖ, reinforcing τὰ γαρ ἔργα after ἃ δέδωκέν μοι κτλ.)
5:37 καὶ ὁ πέμψας pe πατὴρ ἐκεῖνος μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ ἐμοῦ.
5:38 ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος τούτῳ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε.
6:39 ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ.
6:46 ὁ ὧν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα.
7:18 ὁ δὲ ζητῶν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτὸν οὗτος ἀληθής ἐστιν.
8:26 κἀγὼ ἃ ἤκουσα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον.
10:1 ὁ μὴ εἰσερχόμενος διὰ τῆς θύρας... ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστὶν καὶ λῃστής.
10:25 τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου ταῦτα μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ.
12:48 ὁ λόγος ὃν ἐλάλησα ἐκεῖνος κρινεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
12:49 ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ αὐτός μοι ἐντολὴν δέδωκεν.
14:12 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει.
14:13 καὶ ὅτι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω.
14:21 ὁ ἔχων τὰς ἐντολάς μου καὶ τηρῶν αὐτὰς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαπῶν με.
14:26 ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα.
15:2 πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτό.
15:5 ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν.
17:2 ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσει αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
17:24 ὃ δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν per ἐμοῦ.
18:11 τὸ ποτήριον ὃ δέδωκέν por ὁ πατὴρ οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτό ;
[based on google translate to Burney, with *s around what seems to me to have excess pronoun-type material:
1:12 But as many as received him, *to them* gave he power to become the children of God.
1:18 The only begotten of God, *whom* he hath declared in the bosom of the Father.
1:33 He that sent me to baptize with water, *the same* said unto me.
3:26 He that was with the fish, behold, *this same* baptizeth.
3:32 That which he hath seen and heard, *he* beareth record.
5:11 He that made me whole, *the same* hath told me.
5:19 For whatsoever things this man doeth, *these also* doeth the Son likewise.
5:36 For the works which the Father hath given me to finish, *the same works* that I do, bear witness *of me*, that the Father hath sent me (we should surely omit the comma after 'I do,' and make 'these works' the subject of 'bear witness,' reinforcing 'the works' after 'which he gave me' etc.)
5:37 And he which the Father hath sent, *he* beareth witness of me.
5:38 Whom he hath sent, *him* believe ye not.
6:39 That of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing *of him*.
6:46 He that is of God, *he* hath seen the Father.
7:18 But he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, *the same* is true.
8:26 And I speak unto the world that which I have heard of him.
10:1 He that entereth not by the door… *the same* is a thief and a robber.
10:25 The works that I do in my Father’s name, *these* bear witness of me.
12:48 The word that I have spoken, *the same* shall judge him in the last day.
12:49 The Father which sent me, *he* hath given me a commandment.
14:12 He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall *he* do also.
14:13 And if you ask anything in my name, I will do *it*.
14:21 He who has my commandments and keeps them *is the one who* loves me.
14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, *whom* the Father will send in my name, *he* will teach you all things.
15:2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, you take away, and every one that does bear fruit, you prune.
15:5 He who abides in me, and I in him, *the same* brings forth much fruit.
17:2 That as many as you have given him, he may give eternal life.
17:24 I will that where I am they also may be with me.
18:11 The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink *it*? ]
Against these 27 instances in Jn. we can only set
11 in Mt. (4:16, 13:20,22,23,38, 15:11, 19:28, 21:42, 24:13, 25:29, 26:23),
4 in Mk. (6:16, 7:20, 12:10, 13:11), and
6 in Lk. (8:14,15, 12:48, 20:17, 21:6, 23:50-52);
and of these Mt. 4:16 and Mt. 21:42 = Mk. 12:10 = Lk. 20:17 are O.T. quotations.
Of course it cannot be claimed that the use of _Casus pendens_ is specifically a Semitism, since-- to go no farther-- it is a familiar colloquialism in English.
Prof. Moulton remarks that ‘it is one of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English as in Greek’ (_NTG_.^3 i, p. 69).
The fact which concerns us is the remarkable frequency of its occurrence in Jn. as compared with the Synoptists.
If Lk., for example, is a fair specimen of Κοινή Greek, why should we find that a construction which occurs there but 6 times is employed in Jn. with six times the frequency?
An adequate answer is forthcoming in the assumption that a common Aramaic construction has been exactly reproduced in translation.
https://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Origin-Fo...331633184/
https://archive.org/details/aramaicorigi...up?q=casus
So with other stylistic peculiarities of the Gospel, such as the frequent use of _Casus pendens_.
This, Prof. Moulton tells us, ‘is one of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English as in Greek’ (_NTG_.^3 i, p. 69).
We recognize the truth of this statement as regards colloquial English, especially among the semi-educated.
We might be talking to a groom, and it would be natural for him to say,
‘The gentleman who used to ride that horse-- he lost his arm in the war.’
Probably at times we use the same kind of anacoluthon ourselves in ordinary conversation ;
but we do _not_ use it in writing a book or article which we hope may be worthy to rank as literature.
Nor, if we take the whole New Testament as a fair specimen of literature written in the Κοινή, do we find as a rule more than very occasional instances of the usage.
In the Fourth Gospel, however, it _is_ remarkably frequent ;
and it is reasonable to seek some better reason than the supposition that the writer of the finest piece of literature in the New Testament was more than ordinarily infected with colloquialism.
Now there is a literature in which both the usages which we have been noticing-- parataxis and _Casus pendens_-- are not the marks of lack of education but common phenomena of the best writing style, namely, the literature of Semitic-speaking peoples.
If, then, these two characteristics of the style of the Fourth Gospel, only selected by way of example, fit in with numerous other characteristics which point to translation from a Semitic language, their evidence as part of our proof that the Gospel is such a translation is not in the slightest degree invalidated by the fact that parallels can be adduced from the non-literary and ephemeral type of document which we find represented in the papyri.
As a matter of fact, we have little cause to quarrel with Prof. Moulton at any rate in the course which is followed in our discussion of the language of the Fourth Gospel, for he lays down a canon which covers a great part of the characteristics which are brought forward.
‘If we are seeking’, he says, ‘for evidences of Semitic birth in a writer whose Greek betrays deficient knowledge of the resources of the language, we must not look only for uses which strain or actually contravene the Greek idiom.
We shall find a subtler test in the over-use of locutions which can be defended as good Κοινή Greek, but have their motive clearly in their coincidences with locutions of the writer’s native tongue.
This test of course applies only to Greek which is virtually or actually translated-- to the Hebraism of the LXX and the Aramaism of New Testament books which are either translated from Aramaic sources or written by men who thought in Aramaic and moved with little freedom in Greek.’^* [*: _Cambridge Biblical Essays_, p. 474]
It is precisely this over-use of locutions coincident with locutions of Aramaic which will repeatedly be found to characterize the Greek of the Fourth Gospel.
...
Casus pendens.
It is characteristic of Hebrew and Aramaic to simplify the construction of a sentence, and at the same time to gain emphasis, by reinforcing the subject by a Personal Pronoun.
Such reinforcement is specially favoured if the subject happens to be further defined by a relative clause, since otherwise the sentence would-- to the Semitic ear-- appear involved and overweighted.
The same principle is also adopted with the object, when this, for the sake of emphasis, is brought to the beginning of the sentence ;
and other oblique cases may be similarly treated.
Examples in Hebrew are--
Gen. 3:12, ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me (...) of the tree and I did eat’;
Gen. 15:4, ‘But one that shall come out of thine own bowels, he shall be thine heir’ (...);
Gen. 24:7, ‘Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house, &c., He shall send (...) His angel before thee’;
Deut. 13:1, ‘All the word that I command you, it shall ye observe to do’ (...);
Ezek. 18:24, ‘In his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die’ (...).
See further, Driver, _Tenses_, § 123 γ _Obs_.
Similarly in Aramaic--
Dan. 2:37, 38, ‘Thou, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven gave, &c., thou art that head of gold’ (...);
Dan. 3:22, ‘Those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, the flame of the fire slew them’ (...);
Dan. 4:17-19, ‘The tree that thou sawest, &c., it is thou, O king’ (...);
Ezr. 5:14, ‘And moreover, the vessels of the house of God, &c., them did Cyrus the king take out (...) of the temple of Babylon’;
Ezr. 7:24, ‘All priests and Levites, &c., it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, &c., upon them’ (...);
Ezr. 7:26, ‘Every one that will not perform the law of thy God and the law of the king, let judgement diligently be executed upon him’ (...).
This reinforcement of a _Casus pendens_ by the Pronoun is a marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel.
We may note the following illustrations :
1:12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι.
1:18 μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
1:33 ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν.
3:26 ὃς ἦν μετὰ cod... ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει.
3:32 ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ.
5:11 Ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν.
5:19 ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ.
5:36 τὰ γὰρ ἔργα ἃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτά, αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιῶ, μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι ὃ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν (we should surely omit the comma after ποιῶ, and make αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα the subject of μαρτυρεῖ, reinforcing τὰ γαρ ἔργα after ἃ δέδωκέν μοι κτλ.)
5:37 καὶ ὁ πέμψας pe πατὴρ ἐκεῖνος μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ ἐμοῦ.
5:38 ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος τούτῳ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε.
6:39 ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ.
6:46 ὁ ὧν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα.
7:18 ὁ δὲ ζητῶν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτὸν οὗτος ἀληθής ἐστιν.
8:26 κἀγὼ ἃ ἤκουσα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον.
10:1 ὁ μὴ εἰσερχόμενος διὰ τῆς θύρας... ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστὶν καὶ λῃστής.
10:25 τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου ταῦτα μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ.
12:48 ὁ λόγος ὃν ἐλάλησα ἐκεῖνος κρινεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
12:49 ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ αὐτός μοι ἐντολὴν δέδωκεν.
14:12 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει.
14:13 καὶ ὅτι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω.
14:21 ὁ ἔχων τὰς ἐντολάς μου καὶ τηρῶν αὐτὰς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαπῶν με.
14:26 ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα.
15:2 πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτό.
15:5 ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν.
17:2 ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσει αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
17:24 ὃ δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν per ἐμοῦ.
18:11 τὸ ποτήριον ὃ δέδωκέν por ὁ πατὴρ οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτό ;
[based on google translate to Burney, with *s around what seems to me to have excess pronoun-type material:
1:12 But as many as received him, *to them* gave he power to become the children of God.
1:18 The only begotten of God, *whom* he hath declared in the bosom of the Father.
1:33 He that sent me to baptize with water, *the same* said unto me.
3:26 He that was with the fish, behold, *this same* baptizeth.
3:32 That which he hath seen and heard, *he* beareth record.
5:11 He that made me whole, *the same* hath told me.
5:19 For whatsoever things this man doeth, *these also* doeth the Son likewise.
5:36 For the works which the Father hath given me to finish, *the same works* that I do, bear witness *of me*, that the Father hath sent me (we should surely omit the comma after 'I do,' and make 'these works' the subject of 'bear witness,' reinforcing 'the works' after 'which he gave me' etc.)
5:37 And he which the Father hath sent, *he* beareth witness of me.
5:38 Whom he hath sent, *him* believe ye not.
6:39 That of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing *of him*.
6:46 He that is of God, *he* hath seen the Father.
7:18 But he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, *the same* is true.
8:26 And I speak unto the world that which I have heard of him.
10:1 He that entereth not by the door… *the same* is a thief and a robber.
10:25 The works that I do in my Father’s name, *these* bear witness of me.
12:48 The word that I have spoken, *the same* shall judge him in the last day.
12:49 The Father which sent me, *he* hath given me a commandment.
14:12 He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall *he* do also.
14:13 And if you ask anything in my name, I will do *it*.
14:21 He who has my commandments and keeps them *is the one who* loves me.
14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, *whom* the Father will send in my name, *he* will teach you all things.
15:2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, you take away, and every one that does bear fruit, you prune.
15:5 He who abides in me, and I in him, *the same* brings forth much fruit.
17:2 That as many as you have given him, he may give eternal life.
17:24 I will that where I am they also may be with me.
18:11 The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink *it*? ]
Against these 27 instances in Jn. we can only set
11 in Mt. (4:16, 13:20,22,23,38, 15:11, 19:28, 21:42, 24:13, 25:29, 26:23),
4 in Mk. (6:16, 7:20, 12:10, 13:11), and
6 in Lk. (8:14,15, 12:48, 20:17, 21:6, 23:50-52);
and of these Mt. 4:16 and Mt. 21:42 = Mk. 12:10 = Lk. 20:17 are O.T. quotations.
Of course it cannot be claimed that the use of _Casus pendens_ is specifically a Semitism, since-- to go no farther-- it is a familiar colloquialism in English.
Prof. Moulton remarks that ‘it is one of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English as in Greek’ (_NTG_.^3 i, p. 69).
The fact which concerns us is the remarkable frequency of its occurrence in Jn. as compared with the Synoptists.
If Lk., for example, is a fair specimen of Κοινή Greek, why should we find that a construction which occurs there but 6 times is employed in Jn. with six times the frequency?
An adequate answer is forthcoming in the assumption that a common Aramaic construction has been exactly reproduced in translation.