Please explain the dot in the Interlinear

I have before me Hebrews 1:3 "brightness of (his) glory" ... in the Interlinear, I see a dot under the word "his" which is in italics in the KJV.

I further read the explanation of the dot from this site ...

https://wiki.logos.com/Reverse-Interlinear$2fInterlinear__Bibles#Bold_dots_in_the_Surface_text

I read regarding the wee dot the following, "the dot in the English text, it means that the Greek word wasn’t directly translated into English" ...

So is this saying there is actually a Greek word in the original for the word "his" in Hebrews 1:3 or otherwise, Please advise. Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Scott E. Mahle

So is this saying there is actually a Greek word in the original for the word "his" in Hebrews 1:3 or otherwise, Please advise. Thanks!

No, it is not. These are words which are not in the original manuscripts, but were added for clarification and to make proper sense in the English language.

Bootjack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/763083#Comment_763083

Ok, I had previously understood it the way you are saying Scott. But in the explanation of the dot, it says "the dot in the English text, it means that the Greek word wasn’t directly translated into English" ...

That implies the Greek words is there but wasn't directly translated ... what am I missing?

Schumitinu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/763084#Comment_763084

Ok, I had previously understood it the way you are saying Scott. But in the explanation of the dot, it says "the dot in the English text, it means that the Greek word wasn’t directly translated into English" ...

That implies the Greek words is there but wasn't directly translated ... what am I missing?

Both is true. If the dot is in the English text, as you explanation says, then the Greek word has not been translated in the English text. If the dot is in the Greek text then a word has been added for clarification in the English translation. But in the Greek text you will find more arrows than dots. The arrows do the same as a dot, indicating that a word has been added in the translation, but it shows that the added word is implied in the Greek manuscript word to which the arrow points (or if the word is further apart, it has a number next to it indicating which word implies the added English word).

Scott E. Mahle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/763088#Comment_763088

Thank you, Bootjack and Schumitinu! I learned something new this evening. I need to pay attention to which line the dot is on.

Bootjack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/763090#Comment_763090

Ok, let me see if I'm following you still. In the Hebrew epistle, the dot in the Gr text isn't a Greek word that has not been translated, but a you say, it is implied. Am I understanding you correctly?

Then again, if I'm following this correctly, it would not really be correct to translate "Who being the brightness of glory" ?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/763093#Comment_763093

KJV puts his in italics to indicate an interpolated word. The dot below, in the Interlinear, confirms it did not come from the Greek.

The --->4 means that "of" is associated with/comes from the 4th Greek word (the article under "glory"). "glory" itself is the translation of two Greek words indicated by the blue background of its "cell" (when you click "glory"). "the" and "image" are derived from/associated with the Noun to which the arrow beneath is pointing, "the express image" is a single cell with the Noun. Thus "his" is the only word inserted as the English article is generally necessary for the translation.

The ESV uses the same Greek words but the Greek article is directly translated, and "of God" is inserted in place of "his".

Then again, if I'm following this correctly, it would not really be correct to translate "Who being the brightness of glory" ?

Literally (word for word), "Who is brightness the glory" but it would be understood as "Who is the brightness of the glory"

Bootjack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/763104#Comment_763104

Ok, got it. Thank you for that Dave. So appreciated!