90 J. Duncan M. Derrett Talm. B.B. l60b). Grotius (1641)5 explained: verum non opponitur falso, set idem est quod Syr. šarîra Heb. ne’emān [Ket. II. 97...πιστόν, firmum, ratum, stabile, legitimum. Potest aliquid esse verum quod solum per se tale non est ut fidem impetret. Potest quis de re vera dicere (8,14) sed ni si alia accedant non persuadet. One knows (A) that no party in litigation may tender evidence for himself (8,13), though (B) he need not maintain silence’6. Mishnah, R.H. III.1 actually contrasts ne’emān and truth, by no means identical. One knows also (C) that no single testimony was accepted (cf. Mt l8,16 with Dt 19,157. Single testimony might be true, but it was not “legitimate”, what Z.W. Falk (Introduction to Jewish Law I, 1972, 115) renders ‘dependable’. Τhe correct translation of ἀληθής at Jn 5,31 and the other cases I deal with here. A Jewish jurist will say that single testimony is bātēl, “void”. It is a pity that after seventeenth-century authors of great repute had solved the problem our translations-on-shelf continue to give false renderings8, and commentators are, for the most part, similarly unhelpful9. Leon Morris (John, 1971, 324;5), citing Odeberg, actually requires “untrue”, for Jesus would have erred giving “independent” testimony, placed as he was, and therefore both scholars reject “legally valid”. The exquisite argument will persuade those whom it may. The pseudo-improvement, “valid”, can be a In his Annotationes, summarized by M. Polus, Synopsis Criticorum IV (London 1669) 5 121438-50. John Lightfoot’s solution, Harmony of the Four Evangelists, pt. 3 (1647) at Whole Works V (London l822) 265: “true” ad modum recipientis. (How did Lightfoot miss Beza’s recognition of šarîra’ ?) That word is still current: G.M. Lamsa, Gospel of Light (Philadel- phia 1936, repr. San Francisco 1986) 348. With Jn 18,38 cf. 1 Esd. 4,35-36. Alas, T.C. Falla, A Key to the Peshitta Gospels (Leiden 1991-) has not reached š. (A) Mishnah, Ket. II.9; R.H. III.1; Bab. Talm., Ket. 27b. H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, 6 Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, II, 466, 522. (B) An accused’s objurgations can be imagined. He may curse both witnesses and the court. P. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice. Legal Terms and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield 1994) 342-2. H. van Vliet, No Single Testimony (Utrecht 1958). Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, 7 268-9. At Jn 5,31, of translations into English in my hands seven (including REB) read 8 “valid” while ten read “true” or the equivalent. Modern commentators are happy to reprint “true”. Translations into Hebrew having n’eemnāhͅ ‛ēdûtî are partially correct. The Vulg. has non est verum (so Luther) but Knox’ (1945) “worth nothing” reveals the author’s access to a Jewish source. W. Temple, Readings in St John’s Gospel (London 1968) 113, has “convinc- ing evidence”, when what is needed is “judicially acceptable, legitimate”. See Cornelius à Lapide (1639) at Jn 5,31. No help is to be had from Bultmann (1962); Dodd (1968); Marsh (1968); Barrett 9 (21978); Heanchen (EV 1984); Beasley-Murray (1999). Bernard’s “need not be taken as true” (1928) crept towards the right answer. H.N. Ridderbos, John (Grand Rapids 1997) 202, has a good treatment, settling for “judicially valid”.