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

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

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

Post 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.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

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

Post 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. ;)
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

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

Post 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.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

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

Post 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]
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”