2

According to https://biblehub.com/strongs/2_thessalonians/2-14.htm

In the phrase, "He called you...", the "you" is ὑμᾶς, which is "Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Accusative 2nd Person Plural".

So if it is plural, why does Strong define it as "You. The person pronoun of the second person singular; thou"?

1

2 Answers 2

3

Let us begin with a literal translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:14 -

to this also He called you through our gospel for obtaining of glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As the OP has already pointed out, "you" is is translated from ὑμᾶς (humas) which is Personal Possessive Pronoun - Accusative 2nd Person Plural

Strong's defines this word as:

The person pronoun of the second person singular; "thou".

Strong's does this because this is the "lexical form". That is, "thou" is nominative second person singular, and the second person plural is "you" (in English this is both nominative and accusative). The possessive or genitive is "your".

We see the same "lexical language" just two words further on with ἡμῶν (hēmōn) which is correctly listed by Strong's as "Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 1st Person Plural" [i.e. "our"] of "the first-person pronoun, I".

That is, Strong's is a lexicon and uses lexical language.

2
  • Yes, of course. Strong's CONCORDANCE can function as a Lexicon. However we have a wide selection of actual lexicons for that purpose. So there is really no justification to rely on GLOSSES from KJV to resolve lexical questions. Commented May 26 at 22:49
  • @C.StirlingBartholomew - I strongly agree.
    – Dottard
    Commented May 26 at 22:50
2

BibleHub has indexed it wrongly. It should be 5209. The Greek word ςύ is the personal pronoun and can be either singular or plural. Though, if you're not aware, the singulars and plurals look nothing alike.

However, historically, Strong's is a concordance and really shouldn't be thought of as a lexicon. It certainly does not provide definitions. I would encourage you to pursue more robust tools that give definitions. The newer lexicons have moved that direction. What glosses are doing is nothing more than giving hints to meaning by listing how the word has been translated. This is misleading because words only have meaning in context. So, definitions provide a lexical semantic basis where glosses require context. Strong's effectively rips the word out of its context.

An example of the difference is this (from Danker's Concise Lexicon):

ἐπιτριπή: 'right to act officially'

versus

ἐπιτριπή: empowerment, full power, commission.

1
  • 1
    +1 Thank you, Mike. I didn't know that and assumed the Strong's gloss to simply indicate a wider semantic range when compared to other sources. Now I know what I don't know instead of remaining in blissful ignorance. <sigh>
    – Dieter
    Commented May 27 at 5:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.