ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
Tobey
Posts: 3
Joined: February 27th, 2013, 11:17 am

ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Tobey »

Hello everyone. I am a long-time visitor, but haven't posted a lot. Mostly just enjoy reading everyone's opinions and insights and as such, I have a question regarding ἰδίοις and ἑαυτοῦ. Last week, our pastor's sermon was on Ephesians 5:15-33, but mostly centered around v.22 ff. In reading through it, I have come to center on v22 and v28 specifically (emphasis mine, obviously):
22 Αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ
28 οὕτως ὀφείλουσιν καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα· ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ
In doing some preliminary research (i.e. word studies on their usage), it does appear, in a basic sense, that ἰδίοις seems to be used more with women and their husbands and ἑαυτοῦ with men and their wives. I am reading through Steven Runge's Discourse Grammar and in the opening pages he makes the extremely salient point, that change has meaning. If Paul uses ἰδίοις in v22 and then immediately switches to ἑαυτοῦ (and 9 more times again in this section), it seems logical that there is a semantic significance between ἰδίοις and ἑαυτοῦ, right?? It reminds me of the ἀγαπᾷς/φιλῶ exchange between Jesus and Peter in John 21:15-17.

I found one attempt on some web page regarding possession vs reflexion, but it just didn't seem to land where I thought it should.

Of course, I could just be grossly wrong, but that's why I seek the opinions here. :)

Thanks in advance for any insight.
Tobey
Tobey Unruh
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

Hello Tobey. It is an interesting question. I can convey what a couple of well known commentators say:
Harold W. Hoehner wrote:Originally the adjective ἴδιος had the idea of that which is one’s own, that which is private or personal, in contrast to that which belongs to another or is public or common (κοινός). However, by NT times it no longer had that significance and it differed little, if at all, from a reflexive or possive pronoun. Its absence in Col 3:18 does not indicate any difference nor does its absence in Eph. 5:25 connote anything but for the hsuband to love his own wife. Paul means that the wife is to submit to her husband as opposed to men in general. If Paul had meant that all females are to be submissive to all males he would have used the adjectives θῆλυς, “female,” and ἄρσην,” “male,” as he does in Gal 3:28 rather than the nouns γυνή, “woman, wife,” and ἀνήρ, “man, husband” (df. matt 5:28, 32-32).
Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians, An Exegetical Commentary, 2002, pg 732
William J. Larkin, in his Baylor Handbook commentary, agrees:
William J. Larkin wrote:The modifier ἰδίος (belonging to an individual, “Her own” BDAG, 466.1.b) indicates that the referent of ἀνδράσιν is “husbands” not “men” (BDAG 79.1.a). The view that ἰδίος points to a “peculiar closeness of … relationship “ (Eadie, 408) rather than simply functioning as a possessive pronoun (Best, 532) is not supported by Paul’s consistent use of it just to indicate a wife’s husband (1Cor 7:2; 14:35; Titus 2:5). Colossians 3:18 is not a decisive counter example (contra Abbott, 165).
and, re. verse 5:28
The repetition of the reflexive pronoun [ie. ἐαυτῶν] throughout the remainder of the passage, with the hsuband being the consistent referent, points to intimate personal responsibility … The pronoun is also consistently fronted to add further emphasis.
William J. Larkin, Ephesians, a Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament, 2009, pg 131, 137
In his comment on verse 28, Hoehner seems, again, to reflect the same emphasis as Larkin, that the repetition of the reflexive pronoun, especially with the reference to ἑαυτῶν σώματα, is intended to convey a personal and 'natural' love the husband should have for his wife - natural like his love for 'himself' (ἑαυτοῦ):
Hoehner wrote:… the focus is directed on the extent that a husband should have for his wife, that is, the same way that Christ loves the Church. This love is not to be seen as a duty but as something that is consistent with his nature. As he does not think of loving himself, because it is natural. so also, should the husband’s love of his wife be something that is as natural as loving himself. – Hoehner, pg765
Finally,
Tobey wrote:I am reading through Steven Runge's Discourse Grammar and in the opening pages he makes the extremely salient point, that change has meaning.
Surely, though, the 'meaning' or purpose of change in the author's choice of words is often simply to vary the expression for reasons of style and variety.
γράφω μαθεῖν
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3353
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:Surely, though, the 'meaning' or purpose of change in the author's choice of words is often simply to vary the expression for reasons of style and variety.
As a general matter, I view this response as a non-explanation. If we don't know the reason why, I think it is better to just admit our ignorance instead of proposing something unfalsiable.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Thomas Dolhanty wrote:Surely, though, the 'meaning' or purpose of change in the author's choice of words is often simply to vary the expression for reasons of style and variety.
As a general matter, I view this response as a non-explanation. If we don't know the reason why, I think it is better to just admit our ignorance instead of proposing something unfalsiable.
"Change has meaning" is a generalization. My only point is, speaking in a likewise general sense, a change in language is often simply a question of style. That is true in every language, and demonstrable with every author. The 'meaning' of the change may not be more significant than a varying one's expression to make the text more readable/interesting. I didn't say that applies here, nor do I think it does. I was simply commenting on the generalization 'change has meaning', What does one mean by 'meaning' in that saying?
γράφω μαθεῖν
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Thomas Dolhanty wrote:Surely, though, the 'meaning' or purpose of change in the author's choice of words is often simply to vary the expression for reasons of style and variety.
As a general matter, I view this response as a non-explanation. If we don't know the reason why, I think it is better to just admit our ignorance instead of proposing something unfalsiable.
"Change has meaning" is a generalization. My only point is, speaking in a likewise general sense, a change in language is often simply a question of style. That is true in every language, and demonstrable with every author. The 'meaning' of the change may not be more significant than a varying one's expression to make the text more readable/interesting. I didn't say that applies here, nor do I think it does. I was simply commenting on the generalization 'change has meaning', What does one mean by 'meaning' in that saying?
Well... I was waiting for someone to ask Tobey to include his full name in the signature - according to board policy - before I posted this, but as discussion is already underway, I may as well chip in with my own little distraction from what the question is actually asking.

For ἑαυτοῦ / ἑαυτῆς / ἑαυτῶν as an adjective (and sometimes in other cases), try reading the meaning "which (s)he / they were responsible to / for" in the verses it in the verses it occurs in - it seems (to me at least) to fit the majority of uses. I'm sure it will not be exactly that sense, but that could be a good starting point for discussion.

For ἴδιος in the later sense of possession might be able to be characterised broadly as "which belong to him / her / them // which (s)he / they belong to (or gain their sense of identity from)". The abstract noun ἰδιότης (not ἰδιώτης!!) means "peculiar nature, property, specific character" (LSJ) - that which sets something / someone apart from others or make it recognisably itself. Looking at the words in LSJ that have the suffix ἰδιο- on the front of them could go some way to showing that. ἰδιο- in that sense was a productive suffice during the Hellenistic period. [So far as I understand what was happening in the language, the words ἰδιορρυθμία and ἰδιόρρυθμος are Hellenistic coinages (and later usages) which were at some point used to gloss the earlier ἰδία τάξις and ἰδιότακτος, but they were not limited themselves to the meaning(s) of the words that they gloss, and hence slipped into LSJ] [Be careful when your discussing this topic: "idiolect" is an English formation borrowed back into Modern Greek, so don't use it as a Greek example to support any arguments you might want to bring up].

I would say that far from being a vague stylistic variation, they are appropriate choices.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

The two are practical synonyms by NT times.
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.
Tobey
Posts: 3
Joined: February 27th, 2013, 11:17 am

Re: ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Tobey »

Thomas, thank you for the reply and I get the distinction Paul is placing on a woman's own husband (as opposed to men in general) and the husband's love for his own wife as his own body. However, in regards to your last statement:
Surely, though, the 'meaning' or purpose of change in the author's choice of words is often simply to vary the expression for reasons of style and variety
I respectfully disagree because if it were due to style, isn't it plausible to think that Paul would have broken up the numerous uses of ἑαυτοῦ with ἰδίοις? It seems the usage of the two terms was intentional and purposeful. Just a thought.

Stephen (Hughes), If I am understanding you right, are you [basically] saying that the woman gains her 'identity/ἰδίοις' from the husband where the husband's responsibility for his 'own/ἑαυτοῦ' body (where all the instructions for one's physical body apply) include that of his wife? That does seem to give significance to the need for the two terms.

Barry, This is kind of my point, if they were practically synonymous, why would Paul use them in that fashion, ἰδίοις once and ἑαυτοῦ 9 times in the same pericope? If they were synonymous, I would think he wouldn't have bothered with using ἰδίοις at all in that specific place. Again, just a thought.

Thank you all for the insight. I appreciate it.
Tobey
Tobey Unruh
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:The two are practical synonyms by NT times.
After the New Testament times, ἑαυτοῦ develops a nominative εαυτός with special usages and ἴδιος splits into two usages. There is the higher / literary register that continues the Koine usages of ἴδιος and then there is the colloquial / lower register usages in the form of το δικό μου σπίτι "my own home" (σπίτι < ὁσπιτιον).
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

Tobey wrote:Thomas, thank you for the reply and I get the distinction Paul is placing on a woman's own husband (as opposed to men in general) and the husband's love for his own wife as his own body. However, in regards to your last statement:

Surely, though, the 'meaning' or purpose of change in the author's choice of words is often simply to vary the expression for reasons of style and variety

I respectfully disagree because if it were due to style, isn't it plausible to think that Paul would have broken up the numerous uses of ἑαυτοῦ with ἰδίοις? It seems the usage of the two terms was intentional and purposeful. Just a thought.
I should have been clearer in my initial comment. We don't disagree here, and I was not talking about the uses of ἑαυτοῦ and ἰδίοις in the text you cited. I was simply responding to your citation of Runge's comment as a general principle:
I am reading through Steven Runge's Discourse Grammar and in the opening pages he makes the extremely salient point, that change has meaning.
I was trying to say that - AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE - a change in wording does not necessarily point to a change in the underlying meaning. Sorry for not being more precise. Clearly ;->, even my clarification in response to Stephen Carlson was not clear enough.
γράφω μαθεῖν
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3353
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἰδίοις vs. ἑαυτοῦ

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:I was trying to say that - AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE - a change in wording does not necessarily point to a change in the underlying meaning. Sorry for not being more precise. Clearly ;->, even my clarification in response to Stephen Carlson was not clear enough.
Runge's formulation is not "change has meaning" but "change implies meaning," which already builds in the notion that it is not necessarily the case. You've started with the calm is "often" the case and now I'm happy to see it watered down to "not necessarily the case."

I suggest that it is better to focus what meaning--semantic and/or pragmatic--the change could have, rather than to latch on the exception. In my experience, those who propose stylistic or varietal explanations usually attempt to explain the "obscurum per obscurius" and often just beg the question ("it's different to be different"), thereby foreclosing possible productive avenues of investigation.

The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of research showing that synonymy avoidance is an important part of human language and its acquisition. A good heuristic is that, until shown otherwise, different forms mean different things. It is extremely hard to find stable cases of exact synonyms in language. As a result, I tend to be skeptical of most attempts to tolerate apparent synonymy (i.e. the notion that this change does not imply meaning). The major exception is when we have good evidence to think that an author (that of John's Gospel, say) likes playing with synonyms.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”