Page 2 of 2

Re: Matt 26:51 τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, the high priest's s

Posted: September 15th, 2013, 7:51 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Stephen Hughes wrote: I find the Greek definite article a lot more intimate / immediate than a definition like that (can) describes. For example John 14:26 "Καὶ ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα" The feeling is much more intimate than just known to a reasonable speaker in a discourse context. In these cases, it is almost translatable (into English) as "my", "our" etc.
The possessive use of the Greek article, in which the personal pronoun is omitted but is easily supplied from context, is pretty well known. It's discussed in the primer I use, Crosby & Schaeffer, somewhere in the early chapters of the book.

Re: Matt 26:51 τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, the high priest's s

Posted: September 15th, 2013, 8:08 am
by Stephen Carlson
Barry Hofstetter wrote:The possessive use of the Greek article, in which the personal pronoun is omitted but is easily supplied from context, is pretty well known. It's discussed in the primer I use, Crosby & Schaeffer, somewhere in the early chapters of the book.
Yes. In my feistier moments, though, I might say that the English possessive sometimes has the referential use of the Greek article. ;)

Re: Matt 26:51 τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, the high priest's s

Posted: September 15th, 2013, 10:42 am
by Stephen Hughes
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: I find the Greek definite article a lot more intimate / immediate than a definition like that (can) describes. For example John 14:26 "Καὶ ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα" The feeling is much more intimate than just known to a reasonable speaker in a discourse context. In these cases, it is almost translatable (into English) as "my", "our" etc.
The possessive use of the Greek article, in which the personal pronoun is omitted but is easily supplied from context, is pretty well known. It's discussed in the primer I use, Crosby & Schaeffer, somewhere in the early chapters of the book.
It seems that only the NLV and WE versions use that rule to effect. And from their blurbs it seems that they were both striving for as good English as possible in translation, so that NESBs didn't have to cope with Bible-translation English.

Re: Matt 26:51 τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, the high priest's s

Posted: September 15th, 2013, 10:59 am
by Stephen Hughes
Stephen Carlson wrote:the English possessive sometimes has the referential use of the Greek article.
Is that to say that the article is referring to a known referee (in this case one's father) and the natural relationship is obvious so it doesn't need to be spelt out? (In other words it is not omitted, but it is just not required)?

Assuming I've understood you correctly, that is similar to the distinction in Chinese between "My father" 我爸 (wǒbà) and "My book" 我的书 (wǒdeshū), where the possesive marker "of" / "'s" 的 (de) can be omitted if the immediacy of the relationship is obvious. [Also covered in the early chapters of Chinese grammars:) but bilinguals naturally try to translate good idiomiatic English into Good idiomatic Chinese and vice versa because Chinese is a living spoken language]