Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4159
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by Jonathan Robie »

What work is τὸ doing in the phrase τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον?
Luke 12:32 wrote:Μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν δοῦναι ὑμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν.
How would you interpret it in light of the fact that Jesus is speaking directly to τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Daniel Semler
Posts: 315
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by Daniel Semler »

Jonathan Robie wrote: September 25th, 2021, 11:56 am What work is τὸ doing in the phrase τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον?
Luke 12:32 wrote:Μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν δοῦναι ὑμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν.
How would you interpret it in light of the fact that Jesus is speaking directly to τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον?
Apparently not unknown according to Robertson.
(g) THE ARTICLE WITH THE VOCATIVE. This idiom is frequent in the N. T., some 60 examples.2 It is a good Greek idiom and not infrequent.3 Delbruck4 finds it in harmony with the Indo-Germanic languages. Moulton5 denies that the coincident Hebrew and Aramaic use of the article in address had any influence on the N. T. But one must admit that the LXX translators would be tempted to use this Greek idiom very frequently, since the Hebrew had the article in address.6 Cf. 3 Ki. 17:20, 21, etc. In Mk 5:41, the Aramaic Ταλειθά is translated τὸ κοράσιον. One is therefore bound to allow some influence to the Hebrew and Aramaic.7 Cf. also Ἀββά ὁ πατήρ in Mk. 14:36, Gal. 4:6, and Ro. 8:15. It is doubtless true that ἡ παῖς ἔγειρε (Lu. 8:54) has a touch of tenderness, and that τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον (Lu. 12:32) means ‘you little flock.’ But one can hardly see such familiarity in ὁ πατήρ (Mt. 11:26). But in Mk. 9:25 there may be a sort of insistence in the article, like ‘Thou dumb and deaf spirit’ (τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα). Even here the Aramaic, if Jesus used it, had the article. Moulton8 considers that βασιλεῦ in Ac. 26:7 admits the royal prerogative in a way that would be inappropriate in the mockery of Jesus in Jo. 19:3 (χαιρε, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων). But Mk. 15:18 does have βασιλεῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, due, according to Moulton, to “the writer’s imperfect sensibility to the more delicate shades of Greek idiom.” Possibly so, but may not the grammarian be guilty of slight overrefinement just here? In Mt. 27:29 the text of W. H. has βασιλεῦ while the margin reads ὁ βασιλεύς. In Rev. 15:3 we have ὁ βασιλεύς τῶν αἰώνων. In Heb. 1:8 it is not certain whether (ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός) ὁ θεός is vocative or nominative. But ὁ δεσπότης ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός (Rev. 6:10) is vocative. As examples of participles in the vocative take ὁ καταλύων (Mt. 27:40) [Page 466] and οἱ ἐμπεπλησμένοι νῦν (Lu. 6:25). In Rev. 4:11 we have also the vocative case in ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεός. In Jo. 20:28Thomas addresses Jesus as ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, the vocative like those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer1 calls this exclamation rather than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E. A. Abbott2 follows suit also in an extended argument to show that κύριε ὁ θεός is the LXX way of addressing God, not ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεός. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that “this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii. 13, φωνεῖτέ με ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ ὁ κύριος, and Rev. 4:11 ἄξιος εἶ, ὁκύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ought to have been mentioned above.” This is a manly retraction, and he adds: “John may have used it here exceptionally.” Leave out “exceptionally” and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in Jo. 20:28 than in Rev. 4:11.
I haven't checked much further. Wallace doesn't seem to mention this case specifically. I haven't check CGCG.

Thx
D
Jean Putmans
Posts: 152
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by Jean Putmans »

Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek has nothing on this.

According to Schwyzer and Mayser this is porobably an Apposition:


Schwyzer-Brugmann 1966, Page 66:
Wo scheinbar der Nominativ mit Artikel vokativisch gebraucht ist, liegt Apposition vor: αύτάρ οί άλλοι (ihr andern) σύνθεσθ' Άργεΐοι Τ 83 (auch mit l.Pers.: οί δ' άλλοι . . . τάμωμεν Γ 94), ώ βαθυζώνων άνασσα Περσίδων υπέρτατη, μήτερ ή Ξέρξου γεραιά, χαίρε, Δαρείου γύναι Aesch. Pers. 156 (μήτερ aus μήτηρ attrahiert), Πρόξενε καί οί άλλοι οί παρόντες Έλληνες, ούκ ϊστε oτι ποιείτε Xen. an. Ι 5, 16, ύμεΐς οί ηγεμόνες Xen. Cyr. VI 2, 41, σύ δέ, ό άρχων τών ανδρών ebd. VI 3, 33, έπιμελεΐσθε τοΰ σιωπή πορεύεσθαι, οι τε άρχοντες καί πάντες δέ οί σωφρονοΰντες ebd. V 3, 43.5

Mayser 1926, Vol II,1 Page 56
3. Dem klassischen Sprachgebrauch entspricht es (vgl. Krüger § 50, 7, 13. 14). wenn irgend welche attributiven Zusätze zu einem Vokativ appositionell in der Gestalt des Nominativs treten.
Artemisiapap. 1 ώ δέσποτ’ Όσεράπι κά Θεοί οί μετά Όσεράπιος καθήμενοι (IVa). Dies ist namentlich der Fall nach einem (oft nur zu ergänzenden) Personalpronomen, das die Anrede vertritt: z. Β. εύφράνεσθαι (= εύφραίνεσθε) [sc. ύμείς] οί παρ’ έμού πάντες Par. 51, 39 = Wilcken Arch. VI 20G (159a).
Überhaupt ist in vielen Fällen, wo man direkte Anrede im Vokativ erwarten sollte, appositioneller Anschluß beliebt, so besonders in Bittgesuchen analog zu den oben (unter 1) angeführten Vokativen.
δεόμεθ’ ύμών, τών μεγίστων θεών Par. 29,18 (160a). Lond. I Nr. 23 (p. 38) 14 (158a). Amh. II 33, 21 (nach 157a) Rein. 7, 25 (141a). δεόμεθ’ ύμών, τών πάντων κοινών σωτήρων Leid. Β 2. 18 (164a). ϊνα έπί σέ καταφυγόντες, τόν πάντων βοηθόν καϊ εύεργέτην, τοΰ δικαίου τύχωαεν 2\Iae:d. 4, 9 (222a); 13, 13 (218a); 21, 8 (221a). δι’ ύμάς, τούς εύχαρίστους θεούς, τούς δύο μετρητός έκομισάμεθα Par. 29, 13 (lG0a). πλήν τοΰ τήν ε’φ’ ύμάς καταφυγήν, τούς θεούς μεγίστους καϊ άντιλήμπτορας, ποιησάμενον τυχεΐν με τής στρατείας Lond. 1 Nr. 23 (ρ. 38) 17 (158a). Vokativ und Apposition nebeneinander: ϊνα έπί σέ καταφυγών, βασιλεύ, τόν πάντων εύεργέτην, τοΰ δικαίου τύχω Magd. 25. 8; 33. 9 (221a).
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
James Spinti
Posts: 103
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 6:01 pm
Location: Red Wing MN
Contact:

Re: Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by James Spinti »

von Siebenthal §148b 2c has this as an example. He states, "When nominative noun phrases are used as vocatives (especially in cases where vocative forms exist), KG typically adds the article" (p. 225)

HTH,
James
Proofreading and copyediting of ancient Near Eastern and biblical studies monographs
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4159
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Gotta love B-Greek. Thanks, everyone! Very clear and very helpful responses.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4159
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Lexham's Discourse Greek New Testament marks τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον as "Thematic Address":
Thematic Address—The use of vocatives or nominatives of address containing extra descriptive information that is either not required to identify the addressee(s). The information has the effect of characterizing the addressee(s), based upon how the speaker conceives of them. See the Introduction for further discussion on Thematic Address.

Runge, S. E. (2008). The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament: Glossary. Lexham Press.
Seems consistent with what others have said.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Jonathan Robie wrote: September 25th, 2021, 2:54 pm Gotta love B-Greek. Thanks, everyone! Very clear and very helpful responses.
I don’t think anyone’s actually said what the article is actually doing there (i.e., how is it definiteness semantically), only that it can.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4159
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Carlson wrote: September 25th, 2021, 10:58 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: September 25th, 2021, 2:54 pm Gotta love B-Greek. Thanks, everyone! Very clear and very helpful responses.
I don’t think anyone’s actually said what the article is actually doing there (i.e., how is it definiteness semantically), only that it can.
Sounds like you have more to say here? Please say more!
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by Stephen Carlson »

No, it’s a puzzle and I’m asking for leads. Just frustrated that past scholarship seems merely content with the showing that the phenomenon exists.

ETA: Perhaps the apposition idea suggests that the article would have the same meaning as in appositions (identifying with the article, classifying without)?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Daniel Semler
Posts: 315
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: Luke 12:32 τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον

Post by Daniel Semler »

Stephen Carlson wrote: September 25th, 2021, 10:58 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: September 25th, 2021, 2:54 pm Gotta love B-Greek. Thanks, everyone! Very clear and very helpful responses.
I don’t think anyone’s actually said what the article is actually doing there (i.e., how is it definiteness semantically), only that it can.
Yeah guilty as charged. I was aware when I posted that I didn't actually answer the question as posed.

I had a look in Turner but no luck but tried BDF and there is this:
(3) Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak, thereby addressed in the 3rd person (Aristoph., Ra. 521 ὁ παῖς, ἀκολούθει). The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say ὁ θεός, ὁ πατήρ etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with article.

Additional Notes

(1) Mt 17:17 pars. ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος (D ἄπιστε in Mk and Lk), A 13:10 ὦ πλήρης (cf. ὦ δυστυχής in Menander); ἄφρων Lk 12:20 and 1 C 15:36 with weaker variant ἄφρον.

(2) Lk 11:39 ὑμεῖς οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, thus also 6:25 οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, οἱ ἐμπεπλησμένοι, in which οἱ ἐμπ. has the value of a voc. Rev 18:20 οὐρανὲ καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι. Cf. Ἰησοῦ (voc.) ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας LXX Hg 2:4, Zech 3:8. C 3:18ff. αἱ γυναῖκες ... οἱ ἄνδρες ... τὰ τέκνα etc. = ὑμεῖς μὲν αἱ γυν ... ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ ἄνδρες etc.

(3) Lk 8:54 ἡ παῖς, ἐγείρου; Mk 5:41 τὸ κορὰσιον (= Aram. טְלִיתָא). Ὁ πατήρ Mt 11:26, R 8:15, ὁ δεσπότης Rev 6:10, ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ ὁ κύριος Jn 13:13; s. §143. Also with attributives: ὁ βασιλεὺς (S βασιλεῦ) τῶν ἐθνῶν Rev 15:3, ὁ β. τῶν Ἰουδαίων Mt 27:29 (BD al. βασιλεῦ) = Mk 15:18 (SBD al. βασιλεῦ) = Jn 19:3 (S βασιλεῦ) is Semitizing, but King Agrippa in A 26:7 etc. is addressed as βασιλεῦ [p. 82] (official address). Omission of the art. only υἱὸς Δαυίδ Mt 9:27, 20:30, 31 (𝔓45 υἱέ here) and A 7:42 οἶκος Ἰσραήλ (from Amos 5:25), because in such cases the art. does not appear in Hebr. either. Ὁ θεός Lk 18:11, H 1:8 OT, 10:7 OT etc., also κύριε ὁ θεός Rev 15:3 OT; θεέ only Mt 27:46: θεέ μου as a translation of the anarthrous ἠλί (θεέ seldom in LXX either; Thack. 145). Wackernagel, Anredeformen 7 (= Kl. Schr. 974); Katz, Philo’s Bible 59f., 152f. Κύριε ὁ θεός Epict. 2.16.13 comes from Judæo-Hell. magic (Breithaupt, Hermes 62 [1927] 255); cf. the same with ἡμῶν in the Hermetic writing Cat. Cod. Astr. 8.2, p. 172. 6.—With attributive: Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου Jn 20:28 (cf. Rev 4:11), ὁ λαός μου Rev 18:4 (voc. sg. from λαός λεώς generally not common); Lk 12:32, Mk 9:25.—Anarthrous πατήρ (Jn 17:11 B, 21 BDW, 24 and 25 AB) and θυγάτηρ (Jn 12:15 ABDW al. [OT], Lk 8:48 BKLW, Mt 9:22 DGLW, Mk 5:34 BDW, etc.) are to be explained in the NT, perhaps, as scribal slips with reference to the later retreat of special forms for the voc. in the third deck In the LXX Judg 11:35 θυγάτηρ μου only B (a late revision); 36 both texts only πάτερ (μου); Ruth 2:22 θυγάτηρ only BALa; these passages never had an article; the revisers who changed the voc. to nom. failed to insert the article (Katz, ThLZ 1957, 113 n. 2). Cf. θυγάτηρ Melinno (i AD?), κύριέ μου πατήρ BGU II 423.11 (ii AD), μήτηρ PRoss-Georg III 2.6 and 27 (iii AD) and with adj. κύριε παντοκράτωρ LXX; there is no certain ex. in the Ptol. pap. (Mayser II 1, 55f.). On the whole Schwyzer II 59–64; W. Schulze, Festschrift Wackernagel 240ff. (= Kl. Schr. 82ff.); Havers, Glotta 16 (1927) 104; for the LXX Johannessohn I 14f.
Lk 12:32 is listed in(3) part 6.

This should at least be testable.

Thx
D
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”