James 2:18

An Exegetical Analysis of the Syntactic Function and Semantic Nuance of αὐτοῦ in Matthew 26:51

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of the Syntactic Function and Semantic Nuance of αὐτοῦ in Matthew 26:51 is based on a b-greek discussion from May 19th, 2014. The initial discussion explored two primary interpretations for the genitive pronoun αὐτοῦ in the clause ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον: first, that αὐτοῦ might be attracted to and strengthen the verb, functioning syntactically in a manner reminiscent of an enclitic; and second, that αὐτοῦ could be fronted within the noun phrase, thereby acquiring a subtle, ‘mini-focus’. The discussion further posited that in spoken Greek, distinct intonations might differentiate these interpretations, drawing a parallel to observed modern Hebrew contractions that reflect ancient linguistic practices.

The main exegetical issue under consideration is the precise syntactic function and nuanced semantic contribution of the genitive pronoun αὐτοῦ in Matthew 26:51. Specifically, the challenge lies in discerning whether αὐτοῦ functions purely as a possessive genitive, a genitive of separation, or a dative of disadvantage/interest, particularly within the context of what is often termed an “external possessor” construction. The placement of the genitive pronoun *before* the direct object noun phrase τὸ ὠτίον, rather than as an internal genitive (e.g., τὸ ὠτίον αὐτοῦ), invites closer examination into how this syntactic arrangement impacts the meaning and rhetorical emphasis of the action described.

Καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἀπέσπασεν τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ καὶ πατάξας τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον.

(Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• No substantive textual differences exist in Matthew 26:51 between the Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT (2010) editions.

Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes

Regarding textual criticism, the NA28 critical edition of Matthew 26:51 presents no significant variants for the phrase ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον that would alter the core exegetical issue. The reading is consistently attested across major manuscript traditions.

Lexically, the following terms are pertinent:

• ἀφαιρέω (G0680): BDAG defines this verb as “to take away, remove,” and specifically “to cut off” when referring to a body part (BDAG, s.v. ἀφαιρέω, 2a.β). In the aorist indicative active form ἀφεῖλεν, it signifies a decisive, completed action.
• οὖς (G3775) / ὠτίον (G5626): οὖς refers to the “ear,” while ὠτίον is its diminutive form, meaning “little ear” or “earlobe” (BDAG, s.v. ὠτίον). The use of the diminutive here may convey a slight nuance of pathos or simply be idiomatic for the specific part of the ear that was severed. KITTEL notes that the ear, as an organ of hearing, often carries symbolic weight in scripture regarding obedience or perception (TDNT, s.v. οὖς).
• αὐτοῦ (G0846): This is the genitive singular masculine form of the pronoun αὐτός. While typically functioning as a possessive (“his”), its position in this construction demands further analysis. BDAG acknowledges its use for simple possession but does not specifically delineate the “external possessor” construction as a separate category for αὐτοῦ itself. However, grammatical studies highlight that such a genitive with verbs like ἀφαιρέω can function as a genitive of separation or interest, indicating the person *from whom* something is taken, rather than solely possessing the object directly (e.g., BDF §189; Wallace, *Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics*, 168-69).

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The clause ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον presents a classic example of what grammarians term an “external possessor” construction (also known as a “dative of disadvantage” or “possessor genitive/dative”). In this construction, the possessor (αὐτοῦ) is expressed outside the direct object noun phrase (τὸ ὠτίον), functioning more like an indirect object or a genitive of separation than a simple possessive adjective modifying the noun.

Grammatically, ἀφεῖλεν is the aorist active indicative, “he took off/cut off.” τὸ ὠτίον is the direct object, “the ear.” The crucial element is αὐτοῦ. Its placement *before* the direct object is significant. Had it been an internal possessive, it would typically be ἀφεῖλεν τὸ ὠτίον αὐτοῦ (“he cut off his ear”). The external position allows for several interpretive nuances:

1. Dative of Disadvantage/Separation: This interpretation aligns with the view that αὐτοῦ is attracted to the verb, strengthening its impact. Here, αὐτοῦ signifies “from him” or “off of him,” emphasizing the individual *from whom* the ear was removed. The action is not just about the ear, but about the effect on the person. This is rhetorically powerful, underscoring the violence perpetrated against the servant.

2. Fronted Possessive with ‘Mini-Focus’: As suggested in the original discussion, αὐτοῦ could retain its possessive sense but be fronted for a subtle emphasis. This could imply “he cut off *his* ear,” perhaps contrasting it with an imagined alternative or simply drawing attention to the specific victim. Rhetorically, this creates a momentary focus on the identity of the injured party. The original post’s insight regarding intonation differentiating this from a stronger, more emphatic fronting (e.g., αὐτοῦ ἀφεῖλεν τὸ ὠτίον) is pertinent; without such explicit emphasis, the mini-focus remains subtle.

3. External Possessor Construction: This interpretation encompasses both the possessive aspect and the “from him” sense. The linked academic reference concerning “External Possession” supports this view. The construction serves to foreground the possessor (the servant) as intimately affected by the action, even though the ear is the direct object of the verb. It is a common idiom in Greek for actions affecting body parts, where the person *possessing* the body part is highlighted. Rhetorically, this creates a more vivid and personal description of the injury, emphasizing the victim’s bodily integrity being violated.

In essence, the genitive αὐτοῦ combines a possessive relationship with the semantic force of a dative of disadvantage or separation, highlighting the personal impact of the action on the servant.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The construction ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον in Matthew 26:51 is best understood as an external possessor construction, where the genitive pronoun αὐτοῦ simultaneously denotes possession and indicates the person directly affected by the action. This emphasizes both *whose* ear it was and *from whom* it was violently removed. The positioning of αὐτοῦ before the direct object τὸ ὠτίον serves to foreground the impact on the individual.

Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions are offered:

1. He cut off his ear.

   This translation prioritizes the possessive aspect in a natural English idiom, reflecting the most common understanding of the phrase without explicitly stating the “from him” component.

2. He cut off the ear from him.

   This rendering emphasizes the external possessor aspect, treating **αὐτοῦ** as a genitive of separation or disadvantage, thereby highlighting the impact of the action on the individual and the violent severance.

3. He severed his ear from him.

   This translation attempts to capture the dual nuance of the Greek construction, acknowledging both the possessive relationship (**his** ear) and the active removal **from him**, providing a more comprehensive reflection of the Greek idiom and its rhetorical force.