The pronoun σου in the letters to the Seven Churches.

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
David
Posts: 13
Joined: November 21st, 2021, 6:36 pm

The pronoun σου in the letters to the Seven Churches.

Post by David »

In 5 of the Seven Letters, Jesus starts by saying, "I know your works..." using four words, οἶδά τὰ ἔργα σου

The first time to Ephesus the order is οἶδά τὰ ἔργα σου. Then in Thyatira and continuing with Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, it is οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα.

I'm wondering what the different placement of the pronoun is intended to do.

Since Paul was prominent in Ephesus does Jesus intend to make a distinction between what is happening in Ephesus which is not what Paul taught? Or is there an implication of Spirit led work? That is, churches are doing things on their own without the guidance of the Spirit? Another thought I had was the meaning of ἔργα should be different. Rather than each being works, one is works and the other is activities.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 629
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: The pronoun σου in the letters to the Seven Churches.

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

David wrote: December 14th, 2025, 10:23 am does Jesus intend to make a distinction between what is happening in Ephesus which is not what Paul taught? Or is there an implication of Spirit led work? That is, churches are doing things on their own without the guidance of the Spirit? Another thought I had was the meaning of ἔργα should be different. Rather than each being works, one is works and the other is activities.
None of those, I think. You are trying to extract too much exegetical (theological, applicational) substance from the grammar or syntax.

You should get familiar with cognitive linguistics and information structure. Steven Runge's Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament is a good start.

Because in Greek you can express the same semantics with different word orders, there's a tendency to use word order (constituent order) to co-operate with information structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure). In general, the neutral order in some context is when something already known or assumed is put first. This is the topic. Then comes something new, what is said about the topic, which is the comment. In Greek the verb (predicate) is often neutral if it's in the front.

So, we have the verb "I know", then "your", then for example "affliction"; or "I know", "the works", "your".

The first option is neutral because the verb comes first, then "your" which is already expected and old information (referred to in the previous sentences). Then comes the comment, which is new information, not known from the context, from encyclopedic information or active in the mind of the hearer in some other way.

The second option is a bit less neutral because the new information is expressed before the old. "Your" anchors the information flow to something which the discourse was talking about, but it comes only after the new information, so it's fronted and therefore gets more "emphasis" (although a linguist might not like talking about "emphasis" becuse it's not an unambiguous term).

How this should be interpreted in this context, in the whole discourse, isn't so clear. In my opinion the difference isn't so important here. You shouldn't try to mine any exegetical gems or gold nuggets from this. Rather, it's about the flow of the discourse, how it sounds and feels. At least you can't find from them something which isn't already in said in the context in some other way, or which couldn't be found for example from historical knowledge.

Be aware also that there may be other valid ways to analyze the constituent order and the information structure here. I'm not really an expert. But my statement about the "gems" and "gold nuggets" stays.
David
Posts: 13
Joined: November 21st, 2021, 6:36 pm

Re: The pronoun σου in the letters to the Seven Churches.

Post by David »

You wrote: In general, the neutral order in some context is when something already known or assumed is put first. This is the topic. Then comes something new, what is said about the topic, which is the comment. In Greek the verb (predicate) is often neutral if it's in the front.
I am struggling to understand how this applies to a unique message given to a specific location.

Ephesus οἶδά τὰ ἔργα σου… (message to Ephesus)
Smyrna οἶδά σου τὴν θλῖψιν… (message to Smyrna)
Pergamum οἶδα ποῦ κατοικεῖς… (message to Pergamum)
Thyatira οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα… (message to Thyatira)
Sardis οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα… (message to Sardis)
Philadelphia οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα… (message to Philadelphia)
Laodicea οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα… (message to Laodicea)

When Thyatira begins, οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα… it seems like you are saying Thyatira looks back to Ephesus which was first, οἶδά τὰ ἔργα σου… (does the unique opening for Smyrna and Pergamum get included as something already known?)

Then, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea also begin as οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα… Structurally, I would think whatever the connection with οἶδά τὰ ἔργα σου… in Thyatira should apply to these locations as well. But if that is the case, then how does what is said to each successive location after Thyatira not qualify as something already known for the next location? For example, how does what is said to Sardis not take into account what was said to Thyatira?

Even if there is no difference in οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα… after οἶδά τὰ ἔργα σου… the change to the opening of the body of the message coupled with the change to the ending means the final four letters begin, οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα… and end, ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. At a minimum, it appears to be a device meant to place the final four letters in a single group.

But that would seem to support some difference is intended in οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα… after the initial addresses to Ephesus (and Smyrna and Pergamum).
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 629
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: The pronoun σου in the letters to the Seven Churches.

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

We are talking from totally different viewpoints. I don't understand what you are trying to say and you don't (maybe) understand what I'm trying to say. Linguistics isn't easy to explain to those how aren't already familiar with it, and I'm really not a linguist, and what I have known is quite rusty nowadays.

The best I can give is encouragement to buy and read Runge's Discourse Grammar. If you are serious at all with Greek, you should read it anyway, for many reasons.

A good handbook is The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (which is mostly valid for Koine, too). It's a modern linguistically oriented basic grammar for students and academics. It has a section on word order. However, according to its nature it's dense and doesn't hold your hand as much as you might want, although it for example spends some pages explaining how constituent order works in English before turning to Ancient Greek.
David
Posts: 13
Joined: November 21st, 2021, 6:36 pm

Re: The pronoun σου in the letters to the Seven Churches.

Post by David »

My question is what is the significance of saying οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα not οἶδά τὰ ἔργα σου as said to the first location. (My assumption is οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα is to place emphasis on “your” and οἶδά τὰ ἔργα σου on “the works.”)

Given that οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα, is used with Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, and οἶδά τὰ ἔργα σου only with Ephesus, does it suggest something more? Despite conditions like no rebuke (of their works) in Philadelphia and no good works in Sardis, both letters begin with οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα. If using οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα is to give emphasis to “your” it would have to be regardless of whether the works were commendable (Thyatira, Philadelphia) or not (Sardis, Laodicea).
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”