Greek Question: THE = HIS ?

ὁ
ὁ
DNSM
the
his^d
92.24

The "d" has the following note:

d Lexical/Grammatical: Here the Greek article is used as a possessive pronoun
Harris, W. H., III. (2010; 2010). The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So I'm wondering if this is common, or if this is situational (i.e. necessary to have the sentence "make sense"...emphasis on "make"). Is there a rule governing this?

Thanks.

EDIT: Noticed this nearby, same verse...

τοῦ

ὁ

DGSN

the

his^b

92.24

The "b" is the same note as above.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jack Caviness

So I'm wondering if this is common

Appears to be common, at least in that resource

In the few examples I read, this interpretation seems driven by the immediate context.You can see some of those in the screenshot (Mt 8:3; 15:4). Some of the others here could go either way (Mt 10:24).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593145#Comment_593145

Does it matter? I'd kinda like a non-contextual answer, if possible.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593148#Comment_593148

Does it matter? I'd kinda like a non-contextual answer, if possible.

You responded while I was correcting my initial answer. See my post again [8-|]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593149#Comment_593149

Thanks. I didn't even know L5 did footnote searches. Nice to know. This helps me comprehend what's happening. It appears to be situational (i.e. contextual).

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593151#Comment_593151

It appears to be situational (i.e. contextual).

That seems to be the case.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593151#Comment_593151

Thanks. I didn't even know L5 did footnote searches. Nice to know. This helps me comprehend what's happening. It appears to be situational (i.e. contextual).

As is all language. That is why translation is never an exact science.

Some cults have been formed because some one had just enough Greek to be dangerous. One such cult comes to mind that has over 7 million members, but I stray from the point.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593154#Comment_593154

Wild guess...is it the one that says Yeishuu`a is Miykhaa'eil (Jesus is Michael)? What is the reason again that can't be true of `Immaanuu 'Eil?

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593161#Comment_593161

I think I am outside of policy.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593145#Comment_593145

So I'm wondering if this is common

Appears to be common, at least in that resource

This is a not uncommon feature of other languages as well. In Spanish they will say "lavarse las manos" and mean "your hands" (not your brother's or your neighbor's).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593162#Comment_593162

Since I'd not heard of this before I did a bit of research and found that at least 3 groups had beliefs I was unaware of. But I also hit a question for which my Logos library appears to have no answer.

"Some early Protestant scholars identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, basing their view, partly on the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Revelation 12, and partly on the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel. Similarly in 1751 Anglican bishop Robert Clayton held that Michael was the Logos and Gabriel the Holy Spirit, an extreme position which resulted in his prosecution, just before he died." from Wikipedia notes that it needs a citation for the portion I have bolded. Do you have any suggestions as to whom "Some early Protestant scholars" might refer?

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

The "d" has the following note:

d Lexical/Grammatical: Here the Greek article is used as a possessive pronoun

Harris, W. H., III. (2010; 2010). The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So I'm wondering if this is common, or if this is situational (i.e. necessary to have the sentence "make sense"...emphasis on "make"). Is there a rule governing this?

Keep Smiling [:)]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593174#Comment_593174

Do you have any suggestions as to whom "Some early Protestant scholars" might refer?

Note 67 from the Wikipedia article says...

I think Fairbairn's BD refers to this.

Funny, Google is the first to make me aware of this Logos CP (bid placed!). I would like to see the Bible Dictionary added to it. [Y][:)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593174#Comment_593174

Since I'd not heard of this before I did a bit of research and found that at least 3 groups had beliefs I was unaware of. But I also hit a question for which my Logos library appears to have no answer.

"Some early Protestant scholars identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, basing their view, partly on the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Revelation 12, and partly on the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel. Similarly in 1751 Anglican bishop Robert Clayton held that Michael was the Logos and Gabriel the Holy Spirit, an extreme position which resulted in his prosecution, just before he died." from Wikipedia notes that it needs a citation for the portion I have bolded. Do you have any suggestions as to whom "Some early Protestant scholars" might refer?

The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872. Re 12:7, p 334">
Ch. 12:7: "And there was a war in the heaven, Michael and his messengers, to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred, and his messengers."—This being "a war in the heaven," and waged by Michael, who is Christ (whose warfare is not like that of earthly kings), and by His messengers, is an intellectual and polemical warfare. Jesus overruled imperial events, so as to make the cause of the gospel advance. While the blood of the Christians was flowing, eloquent defenders of the faith and mighty masters of reasoning were raised up, such as Quadratus, Aristides, Justin, Tertullian, and Origen, whose apologies, or argumentative defences of Christianity and refutations of paganism, have been preserved. Nor was the imperial dragon idle. Not to speak of his casting multitudes of the Christians into prisons, or relegating them to the mines, or throwing them to the wild beasts or to the flames, they warred against the Christians by their edicts; and some of them, as Adrian and Marcus Antoninus, by their philosophy. The war was maintained by some of their messengers, as the philosophers Celsus and Porphyry. And greatest of all the messengers of the dragon was the Emperor Diocletian, who carried bloody persecution to such a length that he thought he had stamped out the Christian religion, and especially that he had destroyed all copies of the Scriptures.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593182#Comment_593182

Thanks you.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593182#Comment_593182

Also,

A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation. Glasgow: Robert Sanders, 1680. p 331">
1. The instrument, vers. 2. He is called another Angel. &c. He is described in three, 1. That he is an Angel. 2. Ascending from the East. 3. From his office or trust, that he had the seal of the living God. 1. By Angel, we understand no created Angel but Christ Jesus the Angel of the Covenant, called Michael Chap. 12. For, 1. it is Christ who chiefly taketh part with the Elect, and provideth so that none can pluck His sheep out of His hand; and with His Angels (Chap. 12) fighteth against the Dragon and his. 2. Because the keeping of the seal of the living God (as great Lord-keeper or Chanceller under Him) belongeth only to the Mediator. 3. In the words following, He crieth authoritatively, and giveth order to the other Angels who were overseers of the judgement; by which it appeareth to be some eminent Angel unto whom these properties do agree, which is none other but Jesus Christ, though He may have other Angels employed under Him, as it is, Chap. 12.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593185#Comment_593185

An even earlier commentator

Horæ Apocalypticæ; or, A Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical. Vol. 4. Fifth Edition. London: Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday, 1862. p 333">
Next let me sketch, in illustration of his Commentary, Tichonius’ exposition of the connected visions of the Dragon, Beast, and Beast-riding Harlot; given in Apoc. 12, 13, 17.

The travailing Woman then, he says, is the Church, ever bringing forth Christ in his members: the Dragon, the Devil seeking to devour them; his seven heads and ten horns indicating all the world’s kingdoms ruled by him; his dejection from heaven to earth by Michael, i. e. Christ, his being cast out of the Church, or hearts of saints, into the hearts of earthly men:—the floods cast from the Dragon’s mouth against the woman, the multitude of persecutors: the two eagle-wings given to aid her flight from him, the two testaments, or perhaps the two witnessing prophets Elias and his companion: the woman’s wilderness-dwelling, the Church’s desolate state in this world; the time, times, and half a time measuring it, a period on the scale perhaps of a year, perhaps of a hundred years to a time: (on the smaller scale, I presume, the term of special suffering under Antichrist, on the larger that of the Church’s whole tribulation, from Christ’s first to his second coming:)⁴ the Dragon’s rage and planning against the woman’s seed, after the absorption of the floods from his mouth, the Devil’s plan to raise up heresies against it, after the failure of the Roman Pagan persecutions:—floods absorbed "ore sanctæ terræ:" i. e. through the prayers of the saints.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593176#Comment_593176

The "d" has the following note:

d Lexical/Grammatical: Here the Greek article is used as a possessive pronoun

Harris, W. H., III. (2010; 2010). The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So I'm wondering if this is common, or if this is situational (i.e. necessary to have the sentence "make sense"...emphasis on "make"). Is there a rule governing this?

Keep Smiling

Thank you for these. Now I know why I am so much more partial to Hebrew. [:P]

MJ. Smith

So I'm wondering if this is common, or if this is situational (i.e. necessary to have the sentence "make sense"...emphasis on "make"). Is there a rule governing this?

You realize its an English rule, don't you?

Timothy Brown

Lexical/Grammatical: Here the Greek article is used as a possessive pronoun

Harris, W. H., III. (2010; 2010). The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So I'm wondering if this is common, or if this is situational (i.e. necessary to have the sentence "make sense"...emphasis on "make"). Is there a rule governing this?

Thanks.

Here is Daniel Wallace on the article used as a possessive pronoun:

d. Possessive Pronoun [his, her]
1) Definition
The article is sometimes used in contexts in which possession is implied. The article itself does not involve possession, but this notion can be inferred from the presence of the article alone in certain contexts.
2) Amplification
a) The article is used this way in contexts in which the idea of possession is obvious, especially when human anatomy is involved. Thus, in Matt 8:3, there is no need for the evangelist to add αὐτοῦ to what is patently evident: “stretching out his hand” (ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα).
b) Conversely, it is important to note that unless a noun is modified by a possessive pronoun or at least an article, possession is almost surely not implied. Thus, in Eph 5:18, πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι most probably does not mean “be filled in your own spirit” but “be filled in/with/by the Spirit.” And in 1 Tim 2:12 the instruction for a woman not to teach or exercise authority over ἀνδρός most likely is not related to her husband, but to men in a more general way.
3) Illustrations
Matt 4:20
οἱ δὲ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ

and immediately they left their nets and followed him

The article is also anaphoric, pointing back to v 18.

Rom 7:25
ἐγὼ τῷ μὲν νοῒ δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ, τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας.

I serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh, the law of sin.

Eph 5:25
οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας

husbands, love your wives

The article is also generic in a distributive sense: each husband is to love his own wife.
Matt 13:36
ἀφεὶς τοὺς ὄχλους ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν

leaving the crowd, he came into his house

It is possible that the article is merely anaphoric, pointing back to the previous reference in v 1. But that is thirty-five verses away. It is equally possible that Jesus is here returning to his own home.
Cf. also Matt 27:24; Mark 1:41; 7:32; Phil 1:7.

Wallace, D. B. (1999). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (pp. 215–216). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.

TCBlack

Every language is contextual. Try translating English into German, or Haitian Creole into Spanish. Or for that matter Greek or Hebrew into English.

There is a reason that the phrase, "Translation is Treason" exists.

Richard Young says, "It is very difficult to set for exact rules that will cover every case. Sometimes, as Moule (1968:113 says, 'the context is a surer guide to the meaning than is the use of the article.'" (55)

He then proceeds to illustrate a dozen or more individual uses of the article.

Doug Mangum (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593265#Comment_593265

That sort of footnote is included in the LGNTI and LEB NT mainly because Hall (the NT scholar behind the LGNTI which was the initial basis for LEB NT also) wanted to clarify why the Greek article was often glossed with a possessive pronoun in English. Most English versions seem to pass over this detail without comment. Maybe it wasn't worth comment but maybe it helps people learn. Either way, translation is hard work. Especially from heavily inflected languages like Greek and Hebrew into an isolating language like English. ("Isolating language" just means that English uses individual isolated words to express what other languages do with morphology. For example, "I struck him" could be one word in Biblical Hebrew.) Greek also uses anaphora more and uses relative clauses where English would use a separate sentence. I could spend hours just trying to list out how the languages are structurally different. (I mean surface structure, if you like generative grammar.)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593321#Comment_593321

Doug, you know that it is very easy to make the structural differences between languages visible, coherent and understandable? Build a left-branching tree diagram in one language, a right-branching tree diagram in the other. Place the sentences side by side and connect source to target words by lines.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593201#Comment_593201

So I'm wondering if this is common, or if this is situational (i.e. necessary to have the sentence "make sense"...emphasis on "make"). Is there a rule governing this?

You realize its an English rule, don't you?

Exemplify, please.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593321#Comment_593321

That sort of footnote is included in the LGNTI and LEB NT mainly because Hall (the NT scholar behind the LGNTI which was the initial basis for LEB NT also) wanted to clarify why the Greek article was often glossed with a possessive pronoun in English. Most English versions seem to pass over this detail without comment. Maybe it wasn't worth comment but maybe it helps people learn.

I appreciate the annotation. Now I have some understanding about how that works. What I find interesting about this sort of thing is that "common sense" and "context" indicate the acceptability of the possessive, but it isn't a requirement...and it is this sort of thing that prophecy thrives upon. It's funny how often those who chase context also chase prophetic understanding right out the door. Immediate context is quite often, perhaps even most often, utterly irrelevant to the prophetic arc. At this point I would say that the "logical" mind's slavish genuflecting to context is one of the most effective methods YHWH has of keeping stuff hidden in plain sight.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593382#Comment_593382

I appreciate the annotation. Now I have some understanding about how that works. What I find interesting about this sort of thing is that "common sense" and "context" indicate the acceptability of the possessive, but it isn't a requirement...and it is this sort of thing that prophecy thrives upon. It's funny how often those who chase context also chase prophetic understanding right out the door. Immediate context is quite often, perhaps even most often, utterly irrelevant to the prophetic arc. At this point I would say that the "logical mind's" slavish genuflecting to context is one of the most effective methods YHWH has of keeping stuff hidden in plain sight.

I find it amazing that someone would deliberately construe the scriptures as being designedly obscure so that it would not be understood. This sounds very much like the Muslim view of Allah who apparently is intent on the destruction of much of mankind (And yet they refer to him as "merciful"—LOL !) It seems more like Satan than like God.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593386#Comment_593386

I had alerted Logos directly to the content of the above two posts, wildly OT. The second post in particular is most unfortunate and not the most accurate statement of religious beliefs. However, Logos has seen fit not to take any measures. Live and let live, laissez faire, but we all know the post will live on in the search engines for posterity.

Another user recently wondered whether the forum would be a boring place if rules were strictly enforced. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is an absolute dichotomy, I'd personally prefer boringness to trash-talk and political/racial/religious slurs. But in fact I don't think the forum will be such a boring place, just that some recalcitrant users need to be brought in line.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593386#Comment_593386

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593738#Comment_593738

I had alerted Logos directly to the content of the above two posts, wildly OT. The second post in particular is most unfortunate and not the most accurate statement of religious beliefs. However, Logos has seen fit not to take any measures. Live and let live, laissez faire, but we all know the post will live on in the search engines for posterity.

Another user recently wondered whether the forum would be a boring place if rules were strictly enforced. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is an absolute dichotomy, I'd personally prefer boringness to trash-talk and political/racial/religious slurs. But in fact I don't think the forum will be such a boring place, just that some recalcitrant users need to be brought in line.

Perhaps we can bring you into line, Lee.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598597#Comment_598597

I think when you're a business, 'boring' is not a plus. And a quiet restaurant is only a plus if you have hearing challenges.

In the specific thread, boring was pretty much in business, with the nodding-heads assigning 'the' to be 'your' whenever the theology called for it (called 'the context').

Then the angels arrived (which by the way, is quite early if one dates Enoch as pre-Caiphas, and who knows, maybe Enoch's greek wasn't really that good).