Matthew 26:51

An Exegetical Analysis of the Definite Article in Matthew 26:51

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of the Definite Article in Matthew 26:51 is based on a recent b-greek discussion. The initial query concerns the function of the definite article τὸν preceding δοῦλον (slave) in Matthew 26:51, questioning whether it implies that the high priest possessed only one slave or if it serves another purpose in the narrative.

The main exegetical issue revolves around the precise semantic and pragmatic function of the definite article in the phrase τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως. Specifically, scholars debate whether the article indicates a uniquely identifiable individual (e.g., due to prior fame, notoriety, or a specific official role) or if it merely functions anaphorically or deictically to refer to a specific, but not necessarily pre-known, individual within the immediate narrative context of the arrest of Jesus. Understanding this nuance is crucial for interpreting the identity and significance of the slave, traditionally known as Malchus, and the Evangelist’s narrative intent.

Matt 26:51 (Nestle 1904):Καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς τῶν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἀπέσπασεν τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ καὶ πατάξας τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον.
And look one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and unsheathed his sword. And he struck the high priest’s slave and took off his ear.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• No significant textual differences are observed between the Nestle 1904 text and the SBLGNT (2010) for Matthew 26:51. Both editions present an identical reading for this verse, indicating textual stability.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

From a textual critical perspective, the reading of Matthew 26:51, particularly the phrase τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, is highly stable across major manuscript traditions. The NA28 edition confirms this stability, presenting no significant variants that would alter the presence or function of the definite article τὸν or the noun δοῦλον in this context. This consensus indicates that the Evangelist’s choice of wording was well-preserved.

Lexically, BDAG defines δοῦλος (slave) as “one who is in a permanent relation of servitude to another, a slave” (BDAG, s.v. “δοῦλος”). While primarily denoting social status, the term can also describe someone in a position of humble service or dependence. The high priest (ἀρχιερεύς) was a prominent religious and political figure, and his household would typically include numerous slaves and servants. The presence of the definite article τὸν before δοῦλον thus invites further scrutiny. KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) on δοῦλος often expands on its theological and sociological implications, but here the focus is on its grammatical interaction with the article. The question is not about the general meaning of “slave” but about *which* slave is being referred to and *why* he is marked with the definite article.

Translation Variants

The grammatical and rhetorical analysis of τὸν δοῦλον in Matthew 26:51 yields several interpretive possibilities, influencing how the phrase is translated. The online discussion highlighted three main approaches:

1. Interpretation based on pre-existing notoriety or narrative significance: Some suggest the article implies the slave was a “recognizable figure” or “notorious” – perhaps not before the event, but through the telling of the story (e.g., the tradition of Malchus). This perspective posits that the article functions anaphorically, referring to someone already known to the audience or becoming uniquely identifiable by virtue of the Gospel’s narrative itself. The phrase “his Gospel ‘notoriety'” encapsulates this idea, where the specific individual (later named Malchus in John 18:10) gains particular distinction through this dramatic encounter.

2. Interpretation based on a specific, perhaps leading, role within the high priest’s household: This view considers whether δοῦλος, when preceded by the definite article, could implicitly suggest a specific function beyond mere servitude, such as a trusted aide or a household manager. While the discussion notes that more specific terms like οἰκόνομος (steward) or ὑπηρέτης (attendant/officer) exist, the context might still allow for τὸν δοῦλον to refer to “the” slave who held a particular, prominent position. This would imply that the Evangelist deliberately chose δοῦλος for its dramatic implications, yet still expected the audience to understand a specific, perhaps influential, individual.

3. Interpretation based on immediate contextual identification without prior fame: Alternatively, the definite article might simply serve to identify *a specific individual* present at the scene, without necessarily implying prior fame or a special official title. In a large entourage, the article distinguishes “the slave” who was struck from other potential slaves. The act of being struck and having his ear cut off *makes* him “the” slave in question for the duration of this specific narrative moment. This perspective aligns with the idea of a “sucker punch” victim who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather than a pre-identified leader or infamous figure.

Rhetorically, the use of τὸν enhances the vividness of the narrative. Even if the slave was not famous beforehand, the definiteness makes the event more personal and impactful. The evangelist chooses to focus on *this* particular slave, making him a distinct character in the dramatic account of Jesus’ arrest.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The analysis of the definite article in Matthew 26:51 suggests that while δοῦλος unequivocally means “slave,” the article τὸν serves to identify a specific individual within the narrative. The most compelling interpretations suggest either a slave whose identity became noteworthy through the Gospel’s telling or a specific individual implicitly identifiable by his presence and role in the event, rather than necessarily a unique servant in the high priest’s entire household. The article adds specificity and focus to the narrative, highlighting the particular individual involved in this violent encounter.

Based on these considerations, three possible translations, emphasizing different nuances, are offered:

1. And behold, one of those with Jesus stretched out his hand, drew his sword, and striking the well-known slave of the high priest, cut off his ear.

   This translation emphasizes the slave’s notoriety or unique identity within the Gospel tradition or among the intended audience.

2. And behold, one of those with Jesus stretched out his hand, drew his sword, and striking a specific slave of the high priest, cut off his ear.

   This translation highlights that the article identifies a particular individual present at the scene, without necessarily implying prior fame or a special role, but rather making him unique through the event itself.

3. And behold, one of those with Jesus stretched out his hand, drew his sword, and striking the attendant of the high priest, cut off his ear.

   This translation interprets `δοῦλος` in this specific context as a prominent or leading attendant, reflecting a potential interpretation of his implied role, even if the word itself isn’t explicitly hierarchical.