John 1:49 (the) King of Israel

[Stephen Carlson]

John 1:49 ⸂ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ⸃· Ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ ⸂βασιλεὺς εἶ⸃ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.

Talk about how different definite article usage can be between Greek and English! The NIV and most other translations have "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel," where only one of the articles lines up between the source and target languages. Not a problem, of course, but showing that article usage can be subtle and L1 intuitions may not transfer directly to the L2.

I'd like to focus here on the articulation of βασιλεύς, which varies in the manuscripts. The Textus Receptus and Byzantine reading is σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, which the KJV faithfully renders as "thou art the King of Israel." Ever since Westcott & Hort, the critical text omits the article before βασιλεύς, and this is followed by the two English translations immediately in their wake (ERV, ASV: "thou art King of Israel"). Yet the standard translations have now reverted to "the king" without any change the critical text, except for a bunch of minor "literal" translations (BLB, NHEB, WEB, LET). Thr full panoply of translations are here: https://biblehub.com/parallel/john/1-49.htm

My question is: is there is a difference in nuance between the two readings, one with the article and one without, and, if there is, does the plain "King of Israel" get the nuance right?

[Jonathan Robie]

My question is: is there is a difference in nuance between the two readings, one with the article and one without, and, if there is, does the plain "King of Israel" get the nuance right?

I generally do interpret this use of the anarthrous noun as qualitative:

(j) QUALITATIVE FORCE. This is best brought out in anarthrous nouns. So εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα ἀπολῦσαι (Mk. 10:2; cf. 1 Cor. 7:10), παραδώσει ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν εἰς θάνατον καὶ πατῆρ τέκνον—τέκνα ἐπὶ γονεῖς (13 : 12), ὡς μονογονοῦς παρὰ πατρός (Jo. 1:14), γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς (Ro. 1:30). Cf. also Eph. 5:23, ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικός, ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας and αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος. In αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν (verse 24) note the generic article, class and class. See υἱός—πατήρ (Heb. 12:7).

Moulton is clearer about what he means by qualitative force:

Qualitative Force in Anarthrous Nouns
The lists of words which specially affect the dropped article will, of course, need careful examination for the individual cases. Thus, when Winer includes πατήρ in his list, and quotes Jn 1:14 and Heb 12:7, we must feel that in both passages the qualitative force is very apparent-“what son is there whom his father, as a father, does not chasten?" (On the former passage see RV margin, and the note in WM 151.) For exegesis, there are few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than this omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the object. Even the RV misses this badly sometimes, as in Jn 6:68.

For βασιλεὺς and similar titles, I think this is similar to the difference between "He is President of the United States" and "He is the President of the United States", which exists even in English.

[Stephen Carlson]

For βασιλεὺς and similar titles, I think this is similar to the difference between "He is President of the United States" and "He is the President of the United States", which exists even in English.

I think that’s basically right, but I’m a bit surprised that all the major translations don’t do this.

[Philip Arend]

It is also possible that John might have been following a basic convention mentioned by Eleanor Dickey in "Composition and Analysis of Greek Prose": "Greek does not use the article with a few idiosyncratic words that, because they refer to something unique and well known, are considered to be already definite in themselves." She uses as illustration βασιλεύς but defines this use as "the Persian king (as opposed to ὁ βασιλεύς the king of a Greek state). I'm not sure if the messianic king would have a similar innate definiteness, or how grammatically aware of attic conventions John was.

[Stephen Carlson]

It is also possible that John might have been following a basic convention mentioned by Eleanor Dickey in "Composition and Analysis of Greek Prose": "Greek does not use the article with a few idiosyncratic words that, because they refer to something unique and well known, are considered to be already definite in themselves." She uses as illustration βασιλεύς but defines this use as "the Persian king (as opposed to ὁ βασιλεύς the king of a Greek state). I'm not sure if the messianic king would have a similar innate definiteness, or how grammatically aware of attic conventions John was.

The author of the Gospel of John, however, doesn’t seem to follow this convention (see John 12:13, 18:33, 18:39, 19:19).

[Philip Arend]

That is indeed the case. Though, on the lighter side, it seems the chief priests and Pilate were also at odds about the use of the article:

John 19.21 ἔλεγον οὖν τῷ Πειλάτῳ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων Μὴ γράφε Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐκεῖνος εἶπεν Βασιλεύς τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰμί.

[Stephen Carlson]

Good one!