John 11:21

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 900px; margin: 2em auto; padding: 1em; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; margin-top: 1.5em; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.5em; }
h3 { color: #555; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #eee; margin: 1em 0; padding-left: 1em; color: #555; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
.greek-text { font-family: “Gentium Plus”, “Palatino Linotype”, “Times New Roman”, serif; }

Syntactic and Rhetorical Analysis of the Possessive Pronoun in John 11:21b and 11:32c

This exegetical study of Syntactic and Rhetorical Analysis of the Possessive Pronoun in John 11:21b and 11:32c is based on a contemporary philological discussion regarding the nuanced interpretation of New Testament Greek syntax. The initial inquiry highlights a specific syntactic variation between two parallel statements made by Martha and Mary in John 11:21b and 11:32c, specifically concerning the differing placement of the possessive pronoun μου (‘my’).

The central exegetical question revolves around whether this seemingly minor word order difference carries significant semantic or rhetorical implications that ought to be reflected in modern English translations, or if it is merely a stylistic variant without substantive impact on meaning. The analysis aims to explore the potential for emphasis or emotional nuance conveyed by the pre-verbal positioning of the possessive pronoun in John 11:32c, contrasted with its post-nominal position in 11:21b, and to assess how these linguistic features might inform a more precise rendering of the text.

John 11:21b (Nestle 1904): Κύριε, εἰ ἦς ὧδε, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέθανεν ὁ ἀδελφός μου.

John 11:32c (Nestle 1904): Κύριε, εἰ ἦς ὧδε, οὐκ ἂν μου ἀπέθανεν ὁ ἀδελφός.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• No significant textual variants or differences in word order concerning the pronoun μου are found between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 for these specific clauses. Both editions present identical readings for John 11:21b and 11:32c in the relevant sections.

Textual Criticism (NA28): The readings for John 11:21b and 11:32c in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28) are consistent with Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010, showing no textual variants that affect the presence or position of the possessive pronoun μου in these verses. The distinction in word order between the two clauses is therefore well-attested across major critical editions, indicating it is an original feature of the text rather than a scribal variant.

Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

• Κύριε (Kyrie): A vocative form of κύριος, meaning ‘lord,’ ‘master,’ or ‘sir.’ According to BDAG (3rd ed., p. 577), it functions as a polite form of address, often indicating respect or reverence, but can also denote divine lordship. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT, vol. III, pp. 1039ff.) details its broad semantic range from a simple deferential address to an acknowledgment of divine authority, with the specific nuance determined by context. In John 11, both Martha and Mary address Jesus with respect, and potentially with an implicit recognition of his power, albeit overshadowed by their grief.
• εἰ ἦς ὧδε (ei ēs hōde): ‘If you had been here.’ This is a past contrary-to-fact conditional clause. The imperfect indicative in the protasis (ἦς) combined with the particles οὐκ ἂν and an aorist indicative (ἀπέθανεν) in the apodosis indicates a condition unfulfilled in the past, with a resulting counterfactual outcome. BDAG (p. 1098, s.v. ὧδε) defines ὧδε as ‘here,’ indicating location.
• ἀπέθανεν (apethanen): The aorist indicative active of ἀποθνῄσκω, meaning ‘to die’ or ‘to be dead.’ BDAG (p. 103, s.v. ἀποθνῄσκω) confirms this basic meaning. Kittel (TDNT, vol. III, pp. 7ff.) extensively covers the concept of death, both physical and spiritual, in the biblical tradition. Here, it refers to the physical death of Lazarus.
• ἀδελφός (adelphos): ‘Brother.’ BDAG (p. 18, s.v. ἀδελφός) provides this meaning, noting its use for biological siblings. Kittel (TDNT, vol. I, pp. 144ff.) discusses its social and theological implications.
• μου (mou): The genitive singular personal pronoun, meaning ‘my’ or ‘of me.’ It functions as a possessive pronoun here. The critical aspect under examination is its syntactic position.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The core of the exegetical challenge lies in the syntactic placement of the possessive pronoun μου (‘my’) in the two parallel statements:

• John 11:21b (Martha): …οὐκ ἂν ἀπέθανεν ὁ ἀδελφός μου. (literally: “…would not have died the brother my.”) Here, μου follows the noun phrase ὁ ἀδελφός that it modifies. This is the unmarked, neutral, or most common position for a possessive pronoun in Koine Greek. It simply states the fact of possession. Grammatically, it functions adjectivally.
• John 11:32c (Mary): …οὐκ ἂν μου ἀπέθανεν ὁ ἀδελφός. (literally: “…would not have my died the brother.”) In this instance, μου is placed before the verb ἀπέθανεν and is separated from the noun ὁ ἀδελφός. This pre-verbal and separated position is a marked syntactic arrangement in Koine Greek.

The rhetorical implications of such a marked word order often include emphasis. While Greek word order is more flexible than English and not always indicative of emphasis, a deviation from the neutral position can suggest the author’s intent to highlight the moved element. In the context of John 11, the differing emotional states of Martha and Mary provide a compelling backdrop for interpreting this syntactic choice:

• Martha’s statement (11:21) is direct and somewhat matter-of-fact, though filled with sorrow and regret. She engages Jesus in a theological and practical discussion. The standard placement of μου aligns with this relatively composed, albeit grieving, tone.
• Mary’s statement (11:32) is made as she falls weeping at Jesus’ feet, a highly emotional and intimate moment. The pre-verbal position of μου here could function to emphasize the personal nature of her loss, underscoring that it was *her* brother who died. This emphasis on the possessor heightens the sense of personal tragedy and lament, reflecting Mary’s profound grief more intensely than Martha’s earlier, more reasoned articulation. It suggests a deeply felt, rather than merely stated, ownership of the loss.

Therefore, while some translations might consider the difference negligible, a sensitive exegetical approach would acknowledge the potential for the Greek word order to convey subtle rhetorical nuances, especially when corroborated by the narrative’s portrayal of emotional intensity.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The subtle variation in the position of the possessive pronoun μου in John 11:21b and 11:32c, specifically its pre-verbal placement in Mary’s statement, is likely a deliberate rhetorical device by the Evangelist to underscore the heightened emotional state and personal lamentation of Mary. While not dramatically altering the propositional content, it adds a layer of affective emphasis that discerning translations might seek to convey.

Here are three suggested translation approaches, attempting to reflect this nuanced difference:

1. John 11:21b (Martha): “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

   John 11:32c (Mary): “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

   Explanation: This approach prioritizes literal accuracy and natural English word order, considering the emphasis too subtle or not significant enough to warrant a deviation from the standard possessive construction in English. It assumes the emotional context alone adequately conveys the nuance.

2. John 11:21b (Martha): “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

   John 11:32c (Mary): “Lord, if you had been here, *my* brother would not have died.”

   Explanation: This translation attempts to capture the potential emphasis in Mary’s statement by italicizing the possessive pronoun ‘my’. This draws attention to the personal nature of her loss, mirroring the marked position of μου in the Greek text.

3. John 11:21b (Martha): “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

   John 11:32c (Mary): “Lord, if you had been here, it is *my* brother who would not have died.”

   Explanation: This more interpretive rendering for Mary’s statement employs a cleft sentence construction (“it is X who…”) to provide a stronger and more explicit emphasis on the possessor. This option aims to fully convey the rhetorical weight potentially carried by the Greek word order, highlighting the depth of Mary’s personal grief and lament.

“`