“`html
body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; max-width: 800px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 2em; }
h3 { color: #555; margin-top: 1.5em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding: 0.5em 1.5em; background-color: #f9f9f9; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
An Exegetical Analysis of the Article’s Absence Before ‘Joseph’ in Luke 3:23
This exegetical study of ‘An Exegetical Analysis of the Article’s Absence Before ‘Joseph’ in Luke 3:23′ is based on an undated b-greek discussion. The discussion centers on the observed absence of the definite article τοῦ before the name Ἰωσήφ in Luke 3:23, particularly when contrasted with its consistent presence before all subsequent ancestral names in Luke’s genealogy, extending to Adam and God (Lk 3:38).
The main exegetical issue lies in understanding the precise grammatical and theological implications of Luke’s anarthrous (without article) construction for Ἰωσήφ in 3:23, immediately followed by the parenthetical qualification ὡς ἐνομίζετο (‘as was supposed’ or ‘as was thought’). In Greek genealogies, the article τοῦ typically precedes a genitive proper name to denote direct paternal lineage (“son of X”). Its absence before Ἰωσήφ, contrasted with its consistent presence from τοῦ Ἡλὶ onwards through the entire lineage to Adam and God, suggests a deliberate grammatical choice by the author. This choice subtly but significantly marks a distinction in the nature of Jesus’s sonship to Joseph, differentiating it from the biological father-son relationships described elsewhere in the genealogy, and aligning it with the virgin birth narrative presented earlier in Luke’s Gospel.
καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσήφ τοῦ Ἡλὶ, τοῦ Μαθθὰτ, τοῦ Λευὶ, τοῦ Μελχὶ, τοῦ Ἰανναὶ, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, … (Luke 3:23-24 Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- SBLGNT omits Ἰησοῦς after ἦν.
- SBLGNT employs a slightly different word order, presenting υἱὸς ὢν instead of ὢν υἱός.
- Notably, the critical point regarding the absence of the article τοῦ before Ἰωσήφ and its subsequent presence before Ἡλὶ remains consistent across both the Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 editions, reinforcing the textual stability of this grammatical feature.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (BDAG)
The NA28 critical apparatus indicates no significant textual variants that would alter the presence or absence of the article τοῦ before Ἰωσήφ in Luke 3:23. The anarthrous reading is uniformly attested across major manuscript traditions, thus confirming its originality and intentionality in Luke’s text. Textual variations primarily involve the inclusion or omission of Ἰησοῦς and minor word order shifts, none of which impact the grammatical structure central to this exegetical issue.
Lexically, several terms are pertinent to this analysis:
- υἱός (BDAG 1032): Denotes “son” or “descendant.” In a genealogical context, when followed by a genitive proper name, it typically forms the construction “son of X.” The use of anarthrous υἱός in the main clause, even if functioning as a predicate nominative, combined with the anarthrous genitive Ἰωσήφ, contributes to the unique phrasing.
- νομίζω (BDAG 674): Means “to suppose, assume, think, believe.” The imperfect passive form ἐνομίζετο translates as “it was supposed” or “it was thought.” This parenthetical phrase, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, is exegetically crucial. It explicitly qualifies the nature of Jesus’s sonship to Joseph, indicating a perceived or legal relationship rather than a biological one. This qualification directly supports the virgin birth narrative (Luke 1:26-38) by distinguishing Jesus’s origin.
The construction υἱὸς ὢν ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσήφ stands out. While υἱός is nominative (implicitly linking to Jesus), Ἰωσήφ functions as a genitive dependent on υἱός. The absence of τοῦ before Ἰωσήφ, coupled with the qualifying phrase ὡς ἐνομίζετο, serves to mark a distinct type of sonship. It highlights the *legal* or *social* perception of Jesus as Joseph’s son, without affirming biological paternity. This contrasts sharply with the consistent use of τοῦ before all subsequent names (e.g., τοῦ Ἡλὶ, τοῦ Μαθθὰτ), which unambiguously denote direct paternal lineage. This grammatical detail thus functions as a subtle yet powerful rhetorical device, harmonizing the genealogical record with Luke’s theological presentation of Jesus’s miraculous conception.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
Different English translations handle Luke 3:23 with varying grammatical choices, particularly concerning the article before “son” and the placement/rendering of the qualifying phrase ὡς ἐνομίζετο:
- King James Version (KJV): “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph”
Analysis: The KJV places “as was supposed” parenthetically, maintaining the clear qualification. It inserts “the” before “son,” which is a common English idiom but less precise than the Greek anarthrous υἱός here. This choice might slightly diminish the unique nuance conveyed by the original Greek’s specific article usage, though the parenthetical still communicates the essential distinction.
- New International Version (NIV): “being the son, as was thought, of Joseph”
Analysis: Similar to the KJV, the NIV treats ὡς ἐνομίζετο as a parenthetical clause. It also uses “the son,” adhering to standard English grammar for identifying a specific individual in a lineage. The rendering “as was thought” is a faithful translation of ὡς ἐνομίζετο, maintaining the emphasis on perception rather than biological fact.
- English Standard Version (ESV): “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph”
Analysis: The ESV’s rendering is virtually identical to the KJV in structure and implication. The use of parentheses clearly sets apart the qualifying phrase, ensuring its impact on the reader’s understanding of Jesus’s relationship to Joseph. Again, “the son” is an English convention that might slightly obscure the subtle anarthrous Greek.
- New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): “being son, as was thought, of Joseph”
Analysis: The NRSV’s omission of “the” before “son” is a notable and gramatically more precise choice, reflecting the anarthrous υἱός in the Greek. This subtle difference allows for a slightly broader interpretation of “son” (e.g., ‘a son’ or ‘son in status’), aligning more closely with the nuanced legal rather than biological “sonship” that Luke implies, especially when combined with the parenthetical qualification. Rhetorically, this choice foregrounds the peculiar nature of the sonship.
The variations primarily highlight a tension between literal grammatical accuracy (anarthrous υἱός and anarthrous Ἰωσήφ) and idiomatic English clarity (“the son of”). All major translations, however, correctly convey the critical qualification introduced by ὡς ἐνομίζετο, ensuring that Joseph’s fatherhood is understood as perceived or legal, rather than biological.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The absence of the definite article τοῦ before Ἰωσήφ in Luke 3:23, juxtaposed with its consistent presence throughout the rest of Luke’s genealogy, is a deliberate and significant grammatical feature. Coupled with the parenthetical clause ὡς ἐνομίζετο (‘as was supposed’), this construction serves to meticulously distinguish Jesus’s legal or societal sonship to Joseph from a direct biological paternal lineage. This nuanced presentation is essential for maintaining consistency with the virgin birth narrative (Luke 1:26-38) while still providing a genealogy that traces Jesus’s legal heritage through Joseph, in accordance with common cultural practices. The careful use of articles by Luke thus functions as a sophisticated rhetorical device, subtly guiding the reader’s understanding of Jesus’s unique identity.
Based on this exegetical analysis, the following translation suggestions are offered:
- “He was about thirty years old, being a son, as was supposed, of Joseph.”
This translation prioritizes the Greek’s anarthrous υἱός and clearly separates the qualifying phrase, emphasizing the perceived nature of Jesus’s relationship to Joseph.
- “He was about thirty years old, being the son of Joseph (as was assumed).”
This option maintains the common English idiom “the son” but uses a strong parenthetical to clearly mark the legal/social nature of Joseph’s fatherhood, ensuring the crucial qualification is understood while remaining natural in English.
- “He was about thirty years old, thought to be the son of Joseph.”
This rendering integrates the “as was supposed” more smoothly into the main clause’s flow, making the qualification an inherent aspect of the stated sonship rather than a parenthetical interruption, without losing the essential distinction between perceived and biological fatherhood.
“`
Luke 3:23 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ 24 τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ τοῦ Μελχὶ τοῦ Ἰανναὶ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ 25 τοῦ Ματταθίου τοῦ Ἀμὼς τοῦ Ναοὺμ τοῦ Ἑσλὶ τοῦ Ναγγαὶ 26 τοῦ Μάαθ τοῦ Ματταθίου τοῦ Σεμεῒν τοῦ Ἰωσὴχ τοῦ Ἰωδὰ 27 τοῦ Ἰωανὰν τοῦ Ῥησὰ τοῦ Ζοροβαβὲλ τοῦ Σαλαθιὴλ τοῦ Νηρὶ 28 τοῦ Μελχὶ τοῦ Ἀδδὶ τοῦ Κωσὰμ τοῦ Ἐλμαδὰμ τοῦ Ἢρ 29 τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ τοῦ Ἰωρὶμ τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ 30 τοῦ Συμεὼν τοῦ Ἰούδα τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἰωνὰμ τοῦ Ἐλιακὶμ 31 τοῦ Μελεὰ τοῦ Μεννὰ τοῦ Ματταθὰ τοῦ Ναθὰμ τοῦ Δαυὶδ 32 τοῦ Ἰεσσαὶ τοῦ Ἰωβὴδ τοῦ Βόος τοῦ Σαλὰ τοῦ Ναασσὼν 33 τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ τοῦ Ἑσρὼμ τοῦ Φάρες τοῦ Ἰούδα 34 τοῦ Ἰακὼβ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ τοῦ Θάρα τοῦ Ναχὼρ 35 τοῦ Σεροὺχ τοῦ Ῥαγαὺ τοῦ Φάλεκ τοῦ Ἔβερ τοῦ Σαλὰ 36 τοῦ Καϊνὰμ τοῦ Ἀρφαξὰδ τοῦ Σὴμ τοῦ Νῶε τοῦ Λάμεχ 37 τοῦ Μαθουσαλὰ τοῦ Ἑνὼχ τοῦ Ἰάρετ τοῦ Μαλελεὴλ τοῦ Καϊνὰμ 38 τοῦ Ἐνὼς τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ.
[Luke 3:23 KAI AUTOS HN IHSOUS ARCOMENOS hWSEI ETWN TRIAKONTA, WN hUIOS, hWS ENOMIZETO, IWSHF TOU HLI 24 TOU MAQQAT TOU LEUI TOU MELCI TOU IANNAI TOU IWSHF 25 TOU MATTAQIOU TOU AMWS TOU NAOUM TOU hESLI TOU NAGGAI 26 TOU MAAQ TOU MATTAQIOU TOU SEMEI+N TOU IWSHC TOU IWDA 27 TOU IWANAN TOU hRHSA TOU ZOROBABEL TOU SALAQIHL TOU NHRI 28 TOU MELCI TOU ADDI TOU KWSAM TOU ELMADAM TOU HR 29 TOU IHSOU TOU ELIEZER TOU IWRIM TOU MAQQAT TOU LEUI 30 TOU SUMEWN TOU IOUDA TOU IWSHF TOU IWNAM TOU ELIAKIM 31 TOU MELEA TOU MENNA TOU MATTAQA TOU NAQAM TOU DAUID 32 TOU IESSAI TOU IWBHD TOU BOOS TOU SALA TOU NAASSWN 33 TOU AMINADAB TOU ADMIN TOU ARNI TOU hESRWM TOU FARES TOU IOUDA 34 TOU IAKWB TOU ISAAK TOU ABRAAM TOU QARA TOU NACWR 35 TOU SEROUC TOU hRAGAU TOU FALEK TOU EBER TOU SALA 36 TOU KAI+NAM TOU ARFAXAD TOU SHM TOU NWE TOU LAMEC 37 TOU MAQOUSALA TOU hENWC TOU IARET TOU MALELEHL TOU KAI+NAM 38 TOU ENWS TOU SHQ TOU ADAM TOU QEOU.]
IWSHF is indeclinable; it must be genitive here in the construction with WN hUIOS; the other instances of TOU are
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
… regular expressions in names “X TOU Y” = “X son of Y.”
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
I wouldn’t make a case on its absence in the Textus Receptus as many a manuscript does have the TOU preceding Joseph.
—
While I concur with Carl regarding the use of the article with expressions
indicating descent, I would also note that it is by no means unknown for the
simple genitive to be used without the article. I cite only one passage which
is selected as likewise being from the Gospel according to Luke though there are
others as well.
εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι σήμερον σωτηρία τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ ἐγένετο, καθότι
καὶ αὐτὸς υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ ἐστιν·
EIPEN DE PROS AUTON hO IHSOUS hOTI SHMERON SWTHRIA TWi OIKWi TOUTWi EGENETO,
KAQOTI KAI AUTOS hUIOS ABRAAM ESTIN.
Note that like Ἰωσὴφ IWSHF in Lk 3.23 Ἀβραάμ ABRAAM is indeclinable but must be
considered to be in the genitive.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Cc:
Sent: Thu, February 10, 2011 6:52:55 AM
… regular expressions in names “X TOU Y” = “X son of Y.”
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
Hi, Hhong,
Some might argue that Joseph is anarthrous here because he is “new information.”
Miranda: O brave new world, that has such people in’t!
Prospero: ‘Tis new, to thee.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Sent: Thu, February 10, 2011 1:49:19 AM
dear all
could anyone tell me why there is no article tou in front of Joseph while
throughout the list of the father/ancestors of Mary, there is always the
presence of the article tou even up till “of Adam, of God”(Lk 3:38)?
thanks
hhwong
—
Hi, Mark
thanks for the info.
rgds
hhwong
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
thanks for Carl and George’s input. maybe this is the reason why TOU is put
in front of IWSHF at the end of verse 24. do you agree?
Luke 3:23 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς
ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ 24 τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ τοῦ Μελχὶ τοῦ Ἰανναὶ τοῦ
Ἰωσὴφ
[Luke 3:23 KAI AUTOS HN IHSOUS ARCOMENOS hWSEI ETWN TRIAKONTA, WN hUIOS, hWS
ENOMIZETO, IWSHF TOU HLI 24 TOU MAQQAT TOU LEUI TOU MELCI TOU IANNAI TOU
IWSHF]
2011/2/10 George F Somsel
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Luke 3:23 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ 24 τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ τοῦ Μελχὶ τοῦ Ἰανναὶ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ 25 τοῦ Ματταθίου τοῦ Ἀμὼς τοῦ Ναοὺμ τοῦ Ἑσλὶ τοῦ Ναγγαὶ 26 τοῦ Μάαθ τοῦ Ματταθίου τοῦ Σεμεῒν τοῦ Ἰωσὴχ τοῦ Ἰωδὰ 27 τοῦ Ἰωανὰν τοῦ Ῥησὰ τοῦ Ζοροβαβὲλ τοῦ Σαλαθιὴλ τοῦ Νηρὶ 28 τοῦ Μελχὶ τοῦ Ἀδδὶ τοῦ Κωσὰμ τοῦ Ἐλμαδὰμ τοῦ Ἢρ 29 τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ τοῦ Ἰωρὶμ τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ 30 τοῦ Συμεὼν τοῦ Ἰούδα τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἰωνὰμ τοῦ Ἐλιακὶμ 31 τοῦ Μελεὰ τοῦ Μεννὰ τοῦ Ματταθὰ τοῦ Ναθὰμ τοῦ Δαυὶδ 32 τοῦ Ἰεσσαὶ τοῦ Ἰωβὴδ τοῦ Βόος τοῦ Σαλὰ τοῦ Ναασσὼν 33 τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ τοῦ Ἑσρὼμ τοῦ Φάρες τοῦ Ἰούδα 34 τοῦ Ἰακὼβ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ τοῦ Θάρα τοῦ Ναχὼρ 35 τοῦ Σεροὺχ τοῦ Ῥαγαὺ τοῦ Φάλεκ τοῦ Ἔβερ τοῦ Σαλὰ 36 τοῦ Καϊνὰμ τοῦ Ἀρφαξὰδ τοῦ Σὴμ τοῦ Νῶε τοῦ Λάμεχ 37 τοῦ Μαθουσαλὰ τοῦ Ἑνὼχ τοῦ Ἰάρετ τοῦ Μαλελεὴλ τοῦ Καϊνὰμ 38 τοῦ Ἐνὼς τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ.
[Luke 3:23 KAI AUTOS HN IHSOUS ARCOMENOS hWSEI ETWN TRIAKONTA, WN hUIOS, hWS ENOMIZETO, IWSHF TOU HLI 24 TOU MAQQAT TOU LEUI TOU MELCI TOU IANNAI TOU IWSHF 25 TOU MATTAQIOU TOU AMWS TOU NAOUM TOU hESLI TOU NAGGAI 26 TOU MAAQ TOU MATTAQIOU TOU SEMEI+N TOU IWSHC TOU IWDA 27 TOU IWANAN TOU hRHSA TOU ZOROBABEL TOU SALAQIHL TOU NHRI 28 TOU MELCI TOU ADDI TOU KWSAM TOU ELMADAM TOU HR 29 TOU IHSOU TOU ELIEZER TOU IWRIM TOU MAQQAT TOU LEUI 30 TOU SUMEWN TOU IOUDA TOU IWSHF TOU IWNAM TOU ELIAKIM 31 TOU MELEA TOU MENNA TOU MATTAQA TOU NAQAM TOU DAUID 32 TOU IESSAI TOU IWBHD TOU BOOS TOU SALA TOU NAASSWN 33 TOU AMINADAB TOU ADMIN TOU ARNI TOU hESRWM TOU FARES TOU IOUDA 34 TOU IAKWB TOU ISAAK TOU ABRAAM TOU QARA TOU NACWR 35 TOU SEROUC TOU hRAGAU TOU FALEK TOU EBER TOU SALA 36 TOU KAI+NAM TOU ARFAXAD TOU SHM TOU NWE TOU LAMEC 37 TOU MAQOUSALA TOU hENWC TOU IARET TOU MALELEHL TOU KAI+NAM 38 TOU ENWS TOU SHQ TOU ADAM TOU QEOU.]
IWSHF is indeclinable; it must be genitive here in the construction with WN hUIOS; the other instances of TOU are
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
… regular expressions in names “X TOU Y” = “X son of Y.”
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
I wouldn’t make a case on its absence in the Textus Receptus as many a manuscript does have the TOU preceding Joseph.
—
While I concur with Carl regarding the use of the article with expressions
indicating descent, I would also note that it is by no means unknown for the
simple genitive to be used without the article. I cite only one passage which
is selected as likewise being from the Gospel according to Luke though there are
others as well.
εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι σήμερον σωτηρία τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ ἐγένετο, καθότι
καὶ αὐτὸς υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ ἐστιν·
EIPEN DE PROS AUTON hO IHSOUS hOTI SHMERON SWTHRIA TWi OIKWi TOUTWi EGENETO,
KAQOTI KAI AUTOS hUIOS ABRAAM ESTIN.
Note that like Ἰωσὴφ IWSHF in Lk 3.23 Ἀβραάμ ABRAAM is indeclinable but must be
considered to be in the genitive.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Cc:
Sent: Thu, February 10, 2011 6:52:55 AM
… regular expressions in names “X TOU Y” = “X son of Y.”
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
Hi, Hhong,
Some might argue that Joseph is anarthrous here because he is “new information.”
Miranda: O brave new world, that has such people in’t!
Prospero: ‘Tis new, to thee.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Sent: Thu, February 10, 2011 1:49:19 AM
dear all
could anyone tell me why there is no article tou in front of Joseph while
throughout the list of the father/ancestors of Mary, there is always the
presence of the article tou even up till “of Adam, of God”(Lk 3:38)?
thanks
hhwong
—
Hi, Mark
thanks for the info.
rgds
hhwong
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
thanks for Carl and George’s input. maybe this is the reason why TOU is put
in front of IWSHF at the end of verse 24. do you agree?
Luke 3:23 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς
ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ 24 τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ τοῦ Μελχὶ τοῦ Ἰανναὶ τοῦ
Ἰωσὴφ
[Luke 3:23 KAI AUTOS HN IHSOUS ARCOMENOS hWSEI ETWN TRIAKONTA, WN hUIOS, hWS
ENOMIZETO, IWSHF TOU HLI 24 TOU MAQQAT TOU LEUI TOU MELCI TOU IANNAI TOU
IWSHF]
2011/2/10 George F Somsel
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]