04_Parker_222_244_222-244 10/07/15 12:41 Pagina 224 224 FLOYD O. PARKER JR. 224 its clause, thus suggesting that “it” should fill this role by default. Neither of these points is particularly strong. The singular verb does not necessarily imply a singular subject since John commonly pairs neuter plural subjects with singular verbs 6. Furthermore, the sub- ject of tete,lestai in 19,30 may have been unexpressed because it was implied by the context (example one) of the pericope (19,28- 30), where the exact same form of this verb was employed earlier in 19,28 with an expressed subject (pa,nta tete,lestai). This latter view has more to commend it than is commonly acknowledged. One might object that if the author of John had intended for “all things” to serve as the subject of both occurrences of tete,lestai in this passage, he would have simply repeated the phrase in John 19,30. Yet, there are several compelling reasons for thinking he in- tended “all things” to serve as the implied subject of the second oc- currence of the verb as well. First, tele,w appears only twice in the entire Gospel of John (19,28.30), thereby increasing the odds that these words are closely related (an argument from the frequency of occurrence). Second, these two occurrences of tele,w are identical in form 7, once again suggesting a close connection between them and lending weight to the proposal that they share the same subject (an argument from morphology). As Plummer asserts concerning the verb in 19,28, “The identity between tete,lestai here and in John 19:30 must be preserved in translation; are now finished” 8. Gundry concurs: “Insofar as the second tete,lestai echoes the first one, then, we should translate the second, ‘they are finished’, not ‘it is finished’. In this translation ‘they’ harks back to pa,nta, ‘all’ […]. In summary, tete,lestai in 19:30 means ‘they are finished’ in an echo of h;dh pa,nta tete,lestai, ‘all are now finished,’ in 19:28” 9. Third, an author would be unlikely to change the subject of identical verbs that appear in such close proximity without giving his reader a clear indication of such a shift (an argument from uniformity of subject). Fourth, these two verbs appear in the same pericope only 6 GUNDRY, “New Wine”, 292-293, lists several examples of this practice (e.g. John 1,3.28; 3,9.19.20.21.23; 5,36; 6,23.63; 7,8; 9,3; 10,3.4.12.16.21.22.25.41; 12,16; 15,7; 16,15; 17,10; 19,28.31.36; 20,30; 21,25). 7 Both instances of tete,lestai are perfect passive indicative third person singular verbs. 8 PLUMMER, St John, 331. 9 GUNDRY, “New Wine”, 292, 296.