Matthew 9:10 "εν τῃ οικεια"
Posted: November 8th, 2014, 6:00 pm
Matthew 9:9-10a in Codex Bezae "και παραγων εκειθεν ο ιης ειδεν ανθρωπον καθημενον επι το τελωνιον μαθθαιον λεγομενον και λεγει αυτω ακολουθει μοι και αναστας ηκολουθει αυτω και εγενετο αυτου ανακειμενου εν τη οικεια"
A note in the NET Bible says, "The Greek article is used here in a context that implies possession, and the referent of the implied possessive pronoun (Matthew) has been specified in the translation for clarity."
Is this really as clear as the note makes it? I will attempt to explain my understanding of what is going on and welcome any corrections or additional thoughts. The preposition takes a dative so there is nothing that I can see that must imply possession due to case. The use of the article may serve to both introduce new information and to specify a particular item of a class. In this context, it seems to me, both apply. It would appear likely then that the article is used to show that the house is associated with either Jesus or Matthew rather than to refer to another specific house from the context. The open question would then be, to which person does it refer? It seems to me that Matthew is a more likely referent than Jesus, but these are not the only options on the table. In an attempt to make this wall of text a question: is the NET note more of a defense of their interpretation than an explanation of what the text actually says?
A note in the NET Bible says, "The Greek article is used here in a context that implies possession, and the referent of the implied possessive pronoun (Matthew) has been specified in the translation for clarity."
Is this really as clear as the note makes it? I will attempt to explain my understanding of what is going on and welcome any corrections or additional thoughts. The preposition takes a dative so there is nothing that I can see that must imply possession due to case. The use of the article may serve to both introduce new information and to specify a particular item of a class. In this context, it seems to me, both apply. It would appear likely then that the article is used to show that the house is associated with either Jesus or Matthew rather than to refer to another specific house from the context. The open question would then be, to which person does it refer? It seems to me that Matthew is a more likely referent than Jesus, but these are not the only options on the table. In an attempt to make this wall of text a question: is the NET note more of a defense of their interpretation than an explanation of what the text actually says?