Mixing
Why the definite article in 'Abba, Father'?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In both Jesus' prayer :
Abba, Father all things are possible unto thee. Mark 14:36.
and in Paul's epistle :
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:15.
the definite article precedes the Greek name 'father' but does not precede the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew 'father'.
αββα ο ÀαÄηÃÂ
Why would this be ?
greek hebrew
asked 2 hours ago
Nigel J
3,903323
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In both Jesus' prayer :
Abba, Father all things are possible unto thee. Mark 14:36.
and in Paul's epistle :
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:15.
the definite article precedes the Greek name 'father' but does not precede the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew 'father'.
αββα ο ÀαÄηÃÂ
Why would this be ?
greek hebrew
asked 2 hours ago
Nigel J
3,903323
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In both Jesus' prayer :
Abba, Father all things are possible unto thee. Mark 14:36.
and in Paul's epistle :
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:15.
the definite article precedes the Greek name 'father' but does not precede the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew 'father'.
αββα ο ÀαÄηÃÂ
Why would this be ?
greek hebrew
asked 2 hours ago
Nigel J
3,903323
In both Jesus' prayer :
Abba, Father all things are possible unto thee. Mark 14:36.
and in Paul's epistle :
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:15.
the definite article precedes the Greek name 'father' but does not precede the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew 'father'.
αββα ο ÀαÄηÃÂ
Why would this be ?
greek hebrew
greek hebrew
asked 2 hours ago
Nigel J
3,903323
asked 2 hours ago
Nigel J
3,903323
asked 2 hours ago
Nigel J
3,903323
asked 2 hours ago
Nigel J
3,903323
asked 2 hours ago
Nigel J
3,903323
3,903323
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
The word transliterated αββα is Aramaic (×Âַבָּ×Â), not Hebrew (which would be ×Âָב). Aramaic marks definiteness with the absolute state (usually the suffix -ÄÂ), as opposed to Hebrew which uses a prefix. The word ×Âַבָּנis in the emphatic state (the absolute state in Aramaic would be ×Âַב), so it effectively does correspond to the Greek definite article.
answered 1 hour ago
b a
1,3961320
+1. Can't the definite article be used to indicate a vocative, too, in some cases?
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
Why would Paul write an Aramaic transliteration ?
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
@SolaGratia That seems right to me but I don't know any formal rules about it. Though that makes me wonder why the Greek uses the nominative article, not the vocative ὦ
– b a
1 hour ago
@NigelJ Most of the NT transliterations are Aramaic, not Hebrew. Talitha kumi, golgoltha, eloi eloi lama sabachthani...
– b a
1 hour ago
1
@ba Cf. Hebrews 1:8 ÃοÃÂ… θÃÂονο ο Θεο ει αιÉνο "Thy throne, O God, is forever."
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
ἀββα is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic ×Âַבָּ×Â. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, the vocative is often indicated by definitizing a noun.1 Hence, we can interpret ×Âַבָּנinto English as the nominative “the father†(e.g., as the subject of a sentence) or the vocative “father†(e.g., in an address).
In each of its three occurrences in the Greek NT,2 it is unequivocally being used as a vocative. Why, then, is the adjacent lemma ÀαÄήàdeclined in the nominative, ὠÀαÄήÃÂ, rather than in the vocative, ÀάÄεÃÂ?
Robertson wrote, “Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form.â€Â3 He cites Rev. 15:3 as one example of this supposed law: «κύÃÂιε ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉû. There, we see the first member κύÃÂιε declined in the vocative, with the succeeding member ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉàdeclined in the nominative. Yet, a brief survey of the NT yielded «Ã€á½±Ã„εàκύÃÂιε» in Matt. 11:25. If Robertson’s assertion were true, ὠκύÃÂιο should have been written instead of κύÃÂιε.
If we consider the three instances in question, we must ask ourselves if Jesus really said both words? Did Paul really think Greek speaking Christians would cry out both words? I am of the belief (among many commentators; e.g., Bengel, Lightfoot, Wesley, etc.) that the adjacent Greek was added by a later transcriber (or perhaps by the author himself) for the purpose of translating what was to some of its intended audience an unknown word (i.e., the Greek transliteration ἀββα). That being said, ὠÀαÄήàis in the nominative because (1) it is a literal translation of the definite ×Âַבָּנand (2) the nominative can function as a vocative.
Footnotes
1 Arnold, p. 10. To definitize a noun in Hebrew, the noun is preceded by the definite article ה, and in Aramaic, × is suffixed to the noun. Hence, Hebrew ה×Âב = Aramaic ×Âב×Â.
2 Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6
3 p. 461
References
Arnold, Bill T.; Choi, John H. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. 2nd ed., revised. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2018.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Vol. 1. New York: Hodder, 1914.
answered 28 mins ago
Der Ãœbermensch
973119
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
The word transliterated αββα is Aramaic (×Âַבָּ×Â), not Hebrew (which would be ×Âָב). Aramaic marks definiteness with the absolute state (usually the suffix -ÄÂ), as opposed to Hebrew which uses a prefix. The word ×Âַבָּנis in the emphatic state (the absolute state in Aramaic would be ×Âַב), so it effectively does correspond to the Greek definite article.
answered 1 hour ago
b a
1,3961320
+1. Can't the definite article be used to indicate a vocative, too, in some cases?
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
Why would Paul write an Aramaic transliteration ?
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
@SolaGratia That seems right to me but I don't know any formal rules about it. Though that makes me wonder why the Greek uses the nominative article, not the vocative ὦ
– b a
1 hour ago
@NigelJ Most of the NT transliterations are Aramaic, not Hebrew. Talitha kumi, golgoltha, eloi eloi lama sabachthani...
– b a
1 hour ago
1
@ba Cf. Hebrews 1:8 ÃοÃÂ… θÃÂονο ο Θεο ει αιÉνο "Thy throne, O God, is forever."
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
The word transliterated αββα is Aramaic (×Âַבָּ×Â), not Hebrew (which would be ×Âָב). Aramaic marks definiteness with the absolute state (usually the suffix -ÄÂ), as opposed to Hebrew which uses a prefix. The word ×Âַבָּנis in the emphatic state (the absolute state in Aramaic would be ×Âַב), so it effectively does correspond to the Greek definite article.
answered 1 hour ago
b a
1,3961320
+1. Can't the definite article be used to indicate a vocative, too, in some cases?
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
Why would Paul write an Aramaic transliteration ?
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
@SolaGratia That seems right to me but I don't know any formal rules about it. Though that makes me wonder why the Greek uses the nominative article, not the vocative ὦ
– b a
1 hour ago
@NigelJ Most of the NT transliterations are Aramaic, not Hebrew. Talitha kumi, golgoltha, eloi eloi lama sabachthani...
– b a
1 hour ago
1
@ba Cf. Hebrews 1:8 ÃοÃÂ… θÃÂονο ο Θεο ει αιÉνο "Thy throne, O God, is forever."
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The word transliterated αββα is Aramaic (×Âַבָּ×Â), not Hebrew (which would be ×Âָב). Aramaic marks definiteness with the absolute state (usually the suffix -ÄÂ), as opposed to Hebrew which uses a prefix. The word ×Âַבָּנis in the emphatic state (the absolute state in Aramaic would be ×Âַב), so it effectively does correspond to the Greek definite article.
answered 1 hour ago
b a
1,3961320
The word transliterated αββα is Aramaic (×Âַבָּ×Â), not Hebrew (which would be ×Âָב). Aramaic marks definiteness with the absolute state (usually the suffix -ÄÂ), as opposed to Hebrew which uses a prefix. The word ×Âַבָּנis in the emphatic state (the absolute state in Aramaic would be ×Âַב), so it effectively does correspond to the Greek definite article.
answered 1 hour ago
b a
1,3961320
answered 1 hour ago
b a
1,3961320
answered 1 hour ago
b a
1,3961320
answered 1 hour ago
b a
1,3961320
1,3961320
+1. Can't the definite article be used to indicate a vocative, too, in some cases?
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
Why would Paul write an Aramaic transliteration ?
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
@SolaGratia That seems right to me but I don't know any formal rules about it. Though that makes me wonder why the Greek uses the nominative article, not the vocative ὦ
– b a
1 hour ago
@NigelJ Most of the NT transliterations are Aramaic, not Hebrew. Talitha kumi, golgoltha, eloi eloi lama sabachthani...
– b a
1 hour ago
1
@ba Cf. Hebrews 1:8 ÃοÃÂ… θÃÂονο ο Θεο ει αιÉνο "Thy throne, O God, is forever."
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
+1. Can't the definite article be used to indicate a vocative, too, in some cases?
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
Why would Paul write an Aramaic transliteration ?
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
@SolaGratia That seems right to me but I don't know any formal rules about it. Though that makes me wonder why the Greek uses the nominative article, not the vocative ὦ
– b a
1 hour ago
@NigelJ Most of the NT transliterations are Aramaic, not Hebrew. Talitha kumi, golgoltha, eloi eloi lama sabachthani...
– b a
1 hour ago
1
@ba Cf. Hebrews 1:8 ÃοÃÂ… θÃÂονο ο Θεο ει αιÉνο "Thy throne, O God, is forever."
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
+1. Can't the definite article be used to indicate a vocative, too, in some cases?
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
+1. Can't the definite article be used to indicate a vocative, too, in some cases?
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
Why would Paul write an Aramaic transliteration ?
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
Why would Paul write an Aramaic transliteration ?
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
@SolaGratia That seems right to me but I don't know any formal rules about it. Though that makes me wonder why the Greek uses the nominative article, not the vocative ὦ
– b a
1 hour ago
@SolaGratia That seems right to me but I don't know any formal rules about it. Though that makes me wonder why the Greek uses the nominative article, not the vocative ὦ
– b a
1 hour ago
@NigelJ Most of the NT transliterations are Aramaic, not Hebrew. Talitha kumi, golgoltha, eloi eloi lama sabachthani...
– b a
1 hour ago
@NigelJ Most of the NT transliterations are Aramaic, not Hebrew. Talitha kumi, golgoltha, eloi eloi lama sabachthani...
– b a
1 hour ago
1
1
@ba Cf. Hebrews 1:8 ÃοÃÂ… θÃÂονο ο Θεο ει αιÉνο "Thy throne, O God, is forever."
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
@ba Cf. Hebrews 1:8 ÃοÃÂ… θÃÂονο ο Θεο ει αιÉνο "Thy throne, O God, is forever."
– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
ἀββα is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic ×Âַבָּ×Â. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, the vocative is often indicated by definitizing a noun.1 Hence, we can interpret ×Âַבָּנinto English as the nominative “the father†(e.g., as the subject of a sentence) or the vocative “father†(e.g., in an address).
In each of its three occurrences in the Greek NT,2 it is unequivocally being used as a vocative. Why, then, is the adjacent lemma ÀαÄήàdeclined in the nominative, ὠÀαÄήÃÂ, rather than in the vocative, ÀάÄεÃÂ?
Robertson wrote, “Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form.â€Â3 He cites Rev. 15:3 as one example of this supposed law: «κύÃÂιε ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉû. There, we see the first member κύÃÂιε declined in the vocative, with the succeeding member ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉàdeclined in the nominative. Yet, a brief survey of the NT yielded «Ã€á½±Ã„εàκύÃÂιε» in Matt. 11:25. If Robertson’s assertion were true, ὠκύÃÂιο should have been written instead of κύÃÂιε.
If we consider the three instances in question, we must ask ourselves if Jesus really said both words? Did Paul really think Greek speaking Christians would cry out both words? I am of the belief (among many commentators; e.g., Bengel, Lightfoot, Wesley, etc.) that the adjacent Greek was added by a later transcriber (or perhaps by the author himself) for the purpose of translating what was to some of its intended audience an unknown word (i.e., the Greek transliteration ἀββα). That being said, ὠÀαÄήàis in the nominative because (1) it is a literal translation of the definite ×Âַבָּנand (2) the nominative can function as a vocative.
Footnotes
1 Arnold, p. 10. To definitize a noun in Hebrew, the noun is preceded by the definite article ה, and in Aramaic, × is suffixed to the noun. Hence, Hebrew ה×Âב = Aramaic ×Âב×Â.
2 Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6
3 p. 461
References
Arnold, Bill T.; Choi, John H. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. 2nd ed., revised. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2018.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Vol. 1. New York: Hodder, 1914.
answered 28 mins ago
Der Ãœbermensch
973119
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
ἀββα is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic ×Âַבָּ×Â. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, the vocative is often indicated by definitizing a noun.1 Hence, we can interpret ×Âַבָּנinto English as the nominative “the father†(e.g., as the subject of a sentence) or the vocative “father†(e.g., in an address).
In each of its three occurrences in the Greek NT,2 it is unequivocally being used as a vocative. Why, then, is the adjacent lemma ÀαÄήàdeclined in the nominative, ὠÀαÄήÃÂ, rather than in the vocative, ÀάÄεÃÂ?
Robertson wrote, “Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form.â€Â3 He cites Rev. 15:3 as one example of this supposed law: «κύÃÂιε ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉû. There, we see the first member κύÃÂιε declined in the vocative, with the succeeding member ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉàdeclined in the nominative. Yet, a brief survey of the NT yielded «Ã€á½±Ã„εàκύÃÂιε» in Matt. 11:25. If Robertson’s assertion were true, ὠκύÃÂιο should have been written instead of κύÃÂιε.
If we consider the three instances in question, we must ask ourselves if Jesus really said both words? Did Paul really think Greek speaking Christians would cry out both words? I am of the belief (among many commentators; e.g., Bengel, Lightfoot, Wesley, etc.) that the adjacent Greek was added by a later transcriber (or perhaps by the author himself) for the purpose of translating what was to some of its intended audience an unknown word (i.e., the Greek transliteration ἀββα). That being said, ὠÀαÄήàis in the nominative because (1) it is a literal translation of the definite ×Âַבָּנand (2) the nominative can function as a vocative.
Footnotes
1 Arnold, p. 10. To definitize a noun in Hebrew, the noun is preceded by the definite article ה, and in Aramaic, × is suffixed to the noun. Hence, Hebrew ה×Âב = Aramaic ×Âב×Â.
2 Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6
3 p. 461
References
Arnold, Bill T.; Choi, John H. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. 2nd ed., revised. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2018.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Vol. 1. New York: Hodder, 1914.
answered 28 mins ago
Der Ãœbermensch
973119
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
ἀββα is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic ×Âַבָּ×Â. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, the vocative is often indicated by definitizing a noun.1 Hence, we can interpret ×Âַבָּנinto English as the nominative “the father†(e.g., as the subject of a sentence) or the vocative “father†(e.g., in an address).
In each of its three occurrences in the Greek NT,2 it is unequivocally being used as a vocative. Why, then, is the adjacent lemma ÀαÄήàdeclined in the nominative, ὠÀαÄήÃÂ, rather than in the vocative, ÀάÄεÃÂ?
Robertson wrote, “Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form.â€Â3 He cites Rev. 15:3 as one example of this supposed law: «κύÃÂιε ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉû. There, we see the first member κύÃÂιε declined in the vocative, with the succeeding member ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉàdeclined in the nominative. Yet, a brief survey of the NT yielded «Ã€á½±Ã„εàκύÃÂιε» in Matt. 11:25. If Robertson’s assertion were true, ὠκύÃÂιο should have been written instead of κύÃÂιε.
If we consider the three instances in question, we must ask ourselves if Jesus really said both words? Did Paul really think Greek speaking Christians would cry out both words? I am of the belief (among many commentators; e.g., Bengel, Lightfoot, Wesley, etc.) that the adjacent Greek was added by a later transcriber (or perhaps by the author himself) for the purpose of translating what was to some of its intended audience an unknown word (i.e., the Greek transliteration ἀββα). That being said, ὠÀαÄήàis in the nominative because (1) it is a literal translation of the definite ×Âַבָּנand (2) the nominative can function as a vocative.
Footnotes
1 Arnold, p. 10. To definitize a noun in Hebrew, the noun is preceded by the definite article ה, and in Aramaic, × is suffixed to the noun. Hence, Hebrew ה×Âב = Aramaic ×Âב×Â.
2 Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6
3 p. 461
References
Arnold, Bill T.; Choi, John H. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. 2nd ed., revised. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2018.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Vol. 1. New York: Hodder, 1914.
answered 28 mins ago
Der Ãœbermensch
973119
ἀββα is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic ×Âַבָּ×Â. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, the vocative is often indicated by definitizing a noun.1 Hence, we can interpret ×Âַבָּנinto English as the nominative “the father†(e.g., as the subject of a sentence) or the vocative “father†(e.g., in an address).
In each of its three occurrences in the Greek NT,2 it is unequivocally being used as a vocative. Why, then, is the adjacent lemma ÀαÄήàdeclined in the nominative, ὠÀαÄήÃÂ, rather than in the vocative, ÀάÄεÃÂ?
Robertson wrote, “Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form.â€Â3 He cites Rev. 15:3 as one example of this supposed law: «κύÃÂιε ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉû. There, we see the first member κύÃÂιε declined in the vocative, with the succeeding member ὠθεὸ ὠÀανÄοκÃÂάÄÉàdeclined in the nominative. Yet, a brief survey of the NT yielded «Ã€á½±Ã„εàκύÃÂιε» in Matt. 11:25. If Robertson’s assertion were true, ὠκύÃÂιο should have been written instead of κύÃÂιε.
If we consider the three instances in question, we must ask ourselves if Jesus really said both words? Did Paul really think Greek speaking Christians would cry out both words? I am of the belief (among many commentators; e.g., Bengel, Lightfoot, Wesley, etc.) that the adjacent Greek was added by a later transcriber (or perhaps by the author himself) for the purpose of translating what was to some of its intended audience an unknown word (i.e., the Greek transliteration ἀββα). That being said, ὠÀαÄήàis in the nominative because (1) it is a literal translation of the definite ×Âַבָּנand (2) the nominative can function as a vocative.
Footnotes
1 Arnold, p. 10. To definitize a noun in Hebrew, the noun is preceded by the definite article ה, and in Aramaic, × is suffixed to the noun. Hence, Hebrew ה×Âב = Aramaic ×Âב×Â.
2 Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6
3 p. 461
References
Arnold, Bill T.; Choi, John H. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. 2nd ed., revised. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2018.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Vol. 1. New York: Hodder, 1914.
answered 28 mins ago
Der Ãœbermensch
973119
answered 28 mins ago
Der Ãœbermensch
973119
answered 28 mins ago
Der Ãœbermensch
973119
answered 28 mins ago
Der Ãœbermensch
973119
973119
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35558%2fwhy-the-definite-article-in-abba-father%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
