In Acts 20:28, might διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου refer to "the blood of his own [son]"?

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.
Post Reply
Bill Ross
Posts: 244
Joined: August 12th, 2012, 6:26 pm

In Acts 20:28, might διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου refer to "the blood of his own [son]"?

Post by Bill Ross »

In Acts 20:28, might διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου refer to "the blood of his own [son]"?
[Acts 20:28 MGNT] (28) προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου

[Acts 20:28 NASB20] (28) "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
What I lack in youth I make up for in immaturity.
S Walch
Posts: 235
Joined: June 13th, 2011, 4:27 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: In Acts 20:28, might διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου refer to "the blood of his own [son]"?

Post by S Walch »

From C. K Barrett's A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 2 p. 976:
He did so διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου; so P74 א A B C D E Ψ 33 36 945 1175 1739 1891 al Cyril. [The Majority Text] has διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. The latter reading can only be translated, through his own blood, which is very difficult theologically unless in the preceding clause we have (as [the Majority Text] does) κυρίου. Salvation through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ raises no special problems, but it is probably incorrect to read anything other than θεοῦ. The reading of B א etc., which must be accepted, may, like that of [the Majority Text], be translated through his own blood, but can also be translated, through the blood of his Own, his Own being taken as a title of Christ, God’s own Son. This is rejected by Turner (Insights 14f.) who thinks, mistakenly, that it leads to a denial of the deity of the Son. In any case, of course, this would not be a reason for rejecting a reading required by grammar. M. 1:90f. is more inclined to defend it, noting that ‘in the papyri we find the singular [of ἴδιος] used thus as a term of endearment to near relatives, e.g. ὁ δεῖνα τῷ ἰδίῳ χαίρειν.’ Schneider (2:297) similarly thinks that ὁ ἴδιος corresponds to ὁ ἀγαπητός and ὁ μονογενής. Begs. 4:262 adopts ‘of his own’ since ‘it is inconceivable that “his own blood” is right.’ See also Hort, Introduction: Notes 98–100 (perhaps υἱοῦ should be inserted); Ropes in Begs. 3:197–9.
So, yes, yes it could indicate "the blood of his own Son".
Bill Ross
Posts: 244
Joined: August 12th, 2012, 6:26 pm

Re: In Acts 20:28, might διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου refer to "the blood of his own [son]"?

Post by Bill Ross »

Thanks. I'm especially glad to see the example from the papyri.
What I lack in youth I make up for in immaturity.
S Walch
Posts: 235
Joined: June 13th, 2011, 4:27 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: In Acts 20:28, might διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου refer to "the blood of his own [son]"?

Post by S Walch »

The full quote from Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 p. 90 is:
Before leaving ἴδιος something should be said about the use of ὁ ἴδιος without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11 13:1, Ac 4:23 24:23 In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations: e.g. ὁ δεῖνα τῷ ἰδίῳ χαίρειν. In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Ac 20:28 “the blood of one who was his own.” Mt 27:24, according to the text of אL and the later authorities, will supply a parallel for the grammatical ambiguity: there as here we have to decide whether the second genitive is an adjective qualifying the first or a noun dependent on it. The MGr use of ὁ ἴδιος, as substitute for the old ὁ αὐτός, has nothing foreshadowing it in the NT; but in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/b.c.) we find a passage where τῆι ἰδίαι is followed by τῆι αὐτῆι in the same sense, so that it seems inevitable to trace, with Blass, an anticipation of MGr here. Perhaps the use was locally restricted.
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”