An Exegetical Analysis of Textual and Grammatical Nuances in Luke 1:5
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Textual and Grammatical Nuances in Luke 1:5 is based on a b-greek discussion from August 25, 2002. The initial inquiry concerned distinctive readings of Codex Bezae (D05) in Luke’s Gospel, specifically addressing the textual variation regarding the presence or absence of the article του before βασιλεωσ in Luke 1:5. This inquiry also explored whether Luke might have intentionally included the article to differentiate King Herod from other Herodian figures, aligning with his claim of historical precision.
The primary exegetical issue under consideration centers on the grammatical construction employed in Luke 1:5, particularly the use of the dative pronoun αυτωι (“to him/for him”) to denote possession when referring to Zechariah’s wife, instead of the more common possessive genitive αυτου (“of him/his”). The discussion investigates whether this dative of possession conveys a distinct nuance compared to the genitive, potentially emphasizing the object (the wife) in relation to the possessor (Zechariah) or highlighting the possessor’s personal interest, especially when used with an implied equative verb. This grammatical choice is examined in light of other Lukan passages where similar dative constructions appear (e.g., Lk 8:3, 12:15) and contrasted with instances where the genitive is used for possession (e.g., Lk 1:13, 1:18, 4:7, 18:16).
ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ εν ταις ημεραις Ηρωδου του βασιλεως της Ιουδαιας, ιερους τις ονοματι Ζαχαριας εξ εφημεριας Αβια, και γυνη αυτωι εκ των θυγατερων Ααρων, και το ονομα αυτης Ελισαβετ.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- SBLGNT 2010 omits the article του before βασιλεως, reading `Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως`, whereas Nestle 1904 includes it: `Ηρωδου του βασιλεως`.
Textual Criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
Textual Criticism (NA28): The critical apparatus of NA28, consistent with NA27/USB4 mentioned in the discussion, omits the article του before βασιλεως (Luke 1:5). This omission is supported by a significant range of early and weighty manuscripts (e.g., א, B, L, W, Ξ, Ψ, 063, 0102, 33, 579, 892, 1241, 1424, pc, it, vg, syrp,h, copsa, eth, geo, arm). Conversely, the inclusion of του, as found in the Nestle 1904 text quoted and Codex Bezae (D05), is supported by manuscripts such as A, C, D, Θ, ƒ1,13, M, syrs, copbo. The omission is generally favored by modern critical editions due to its strong and diverse attestation, often reflecting a preference for the shorter reading (lectio brevior) and an understanding that the article might have been added by scribes for clarity or emphasis. However, the presence in D05 suggests an early variant that merits consideration, particularly if it carries a specific nuanced meaning as the original discussion posited (e.g., distinguishing Herod the King from an ethnarch).
Lexical Notes:
- Ηρωδου (Herod): Refers to Herod the Great, as context implies. BDAG: “Herod,” used of various members of the Herodian dynasty. KITTEL (TDNT): Provides extensive background on the Herodian dynasty and their interaction with Jewish and Roman authorities.
- βασιλεως (king): BDAG: “king, ruler.” KITTEL (TDNT): Discusses the concept of kingship in ancient Near Eastern, Jewish, and Hellenistic contexts, often contrasting earthly rulers with divine kingship.
- γυνη (woman, wife): BDAG: “a woman, especially a married woman, a wife.” In this context, clearly referring to Zechariah’s wife.
- αυτωι (to him/for him): Dative singular of the third-person pronoun. Here, the focus is its function as a dative of possession. BDAG notes various dative uses, including “indicating the possessor of something.” The nuance often emphasizes the personal connection or interest of the possessor, or highlights the object in relation to the possessor, especially when an equative verb (like `είναι` – “to be”) is implied.
- αυτου (of him/his): Genitive singular of the third-person pronoun. The standard possessive genitive. BDAG notes its use for “possession or belonging.”
Translation Variants
The principal grammatical and rhetorical analyses revolve around two distinct points in Luke 1:5: the textual inclusion or omission of the article του before βασιλεως, and the use of the dative αυτωι instead of the genitive αυτου for expressing possession.
Regarding του βασιλεως: The presence of the article του (as in Nestle 1904 and D05) would explicitly mark “Herod” as the king, potentially emphasizing his unique status or distinguishing him from other Herodian rulers (e.g., ethnarchs or tetrarchs) who might also bear the name Herod. This aligns with the original inquiry about Luke’s historical precision. Rhetorically, the article could add a layer of specificity. Its omission (as in SBLGNT 2010 and NA28), however, does not necessarily diminish Herod’s regal status, as “Herod king of Judea” is a sufficiently clear title. The omission might simply represent a more parsimonious or conventional way of stating a title, or a textual tradition that did not find the article essential for clarity.
Concerning και γυνη αυτωι: The use of the dative αυτωι (“to him” or “for him”) to denote possession (“and a wife to him“) rather than the genitive αυτου (“of him” or “his”) is a significant grammatical choice. Greek syntax grammars identify this as a “dative of possession” or “dative of interest.” While the genitive states possession as a simple fact, the dative is often used to convey a more personal connection or a sense of “belonging to” someone in a more active or emphatic way. As noted in the b-greek discussion, this construction frequently appears with an implied equative verb (`είναι`, “to be”), as in “there was a wife to him.” This nuance can emphasize the object (the wife) in relation to the possessor (Zechariah) or highlight the possessor’s personal interest or concern regarding the object. This is distinguishable from a simple possessive genitive, which merely states the relationship without necessarily conveying this added emphasis or interest. The fact that Luke later uses the genitive (`γυνὴ Ζαχαρίου`, Lk 1:13, 1:18) for Elizabeth reinforces that the dative in 1:5 might indeed carry a subtle, distinct emphasis, perhaps introducing Elizabeth not just as an appendage, but as a significant person who “belonged to” or was “given to” Zechariah, or around whom Zechariah had a personal stake.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the textual and grammatical analysis, the choice of translation for Luke 1:5 involves navigating both textual variants and nuanced grammatical constructions. While modern critical texts tend to omit του, the presence of αυτωι as a dative of possession requires careful consideration of its emphatic and personal implications.
1. “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.”
This translation follows the NA28/SBLGNT textual tradition by omitting the article του and translates και γυνη αυτωι with a common English idiom “he had a wife,” which naturally conveys the dative of possession without explicit awkwardness.
2. “It came to pass in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, that a priest named Zechariah, of the priestly division of Abijah, and a wife belonging to him from the daughters of Aaron, whose name was Elizabeth.”
This option preserves the article του for “the king” as found in Nestle 1904 and D05, adding a slight emphasis on Herod’s specific title. The phrase “a wife belonging to him” attempts to more directly render the nuanced dative of possession, emphasizing the personal connection or “ownership” in a more literal sense, though it might sound less natural in contemporary English.
3. “During the reign of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest called Zechariah, from Abijah’s priestly order. And a wife for him was from Aaron’s lineage, named Elizabeth.”
This translation prioritizes readability while still acknowledging the dative’s potential “for him” nuance, which can imply a personal acquisition or divine bestowal. It omits του adhering to the critical text and seeks to convey the dative’s force through a more dynamic English expression, suggesting that the wife was specifically “for” Zechariah, emphasizing his personal stake.