G2257 ἡμῶν (hēmōn)

ἐγώ, gen. ἐμοῦ, enclitic pod; dat. ἐμοί, enclitic μοί; acc. ἐμέ, enclitic μέ; plur. ἡμεῖς, ete.; personal pronoun, J. 1. The nominatives ἐγώ and ἡμεῖς, when joined to a verb, generally have force and emphasis, or indicate antithesis, as Mt. iii. 11; Mk.i. 8; Lk. iii. 16 (ἐγὼ pev... ὁ δέ); Mt. iii. 14 (ἐγὼ... ἔχω, καὶ σύν ; V. 22, 28, 39, and often; ἡμεῖς, contrasted with God, Mt. vi. 12; ἡμεῖς x. of Φαρισαῖοι, Mt. ix. 14; cf. W. § 22,6. But sometimes they are used where there is no emphasis or antithesis in them, as Mt. x. 16; Jn. x. 17; and in many edd. in Mk. i. 2; Lk. vii. 27; οἵ. B. §129, 12. ἰδοὺ ἐγώ, 1397, behold me, hereamT: Acts ix.10 (1S. iii. 8). ἐγώ, like 38, Jam: Jn. i. 23; Acts vii. 32, [ef. W.585 (544); B. 125 (109)]. 2. The enclitic (and monosyllabic) gen., dat., and ace. are connected with nouns, verbs, adverbs, but not with prepositions: ἔμπροσθέν pov, Jn. i. 15; ὀπίσω pov, Mt. iii. 11; ἰσχυρότερός pov, ibid.; τίς μου ἥψατο, Mk. ν. 31; λέγει por, Rev. v. 5; ἀρνήσηταί pe, Mt. x. 33; Lk. xii. 9, (on the accent in these expressions cf. W. § 6, 3; [Lipsitus, Gram. Untersuch. p. 59 sqq.; Lob. Path. Elementa ii. p. 323 sq.; Tdf. N.T. ed. 7, Proleg. p. Ixi. sq.; ed. 8 p-104]); but δι᾿ ἐμοῦ, κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ, πρὸ ἐμοῦ, etc., σὺν, ἐν ἐμοί, περὶ, δι᾽, ἐπ᾽, κατ᾽, εἰς ἐμέ. The only exception is πρός, to which the enclitic μέ is generally joined, Mt. xxv. 36; Mk. ix. 19, and very often; very rarely πρὸς ἐμέ, Jn. vi. 37%, and ace. to LT Tr WH in Acts xxii. 8, 13; xxiv. 19; [also Acts xxiii. 22 T Tr WH; Jn. vi. 35 and 45 T Trtxt.WH; Lk.i.43 TWH; Mt. xix. 14; Jn. vi. 37°, 65, Tdf.; Jn. vi. 44 Tr txt. WH mrg.; 1 Co. xvi. 11 L Tr; but πρὸς μέ, Mt. iii. 14 Tdf. and xi. 28 Grsb.; cf. Lipsius u. s. p. 61 note]. Moreover, the full forms ἐμοῦ, ἐμοί, ἐμέ are used in case of emphasis or antithesis; thus, ἐμοῦ, Lk. x. 16 ; ἐμοί, Jn. vii. 23; x. 38, etc.; ἐμέ, Mk. xiv. 7; In. vii. 7, ete. 3. Asin classic Greek, μοῦ and ἡμῶν are very often used for the possessive pronouns ἐμός and ἡμέτερος [B. ὃ 127, 21]; and when soused, a. they are generally placed after their substantives, as ὁ οἶκός pov, ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν, ete. — the fuller form ἐμοῦ only for the sake of distinction or antithesis [cf. B. § 127, 22], as μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ, Ro. xvi. 13; πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ, Ro. i. 12. But Ὄ. they are sometimes placed before substantives, even which have the article, when no emphasis resides in the pron. or antithesis is involved in its use [W. § 22, 7N.1; B.u.s.]: μου τοὺς λόγους, Mt. vii. 24, 26; even before prepositions, μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην, Mt. viii. 8; less frequently ἡμῶν, as ἡμῶν τὴν πόλιν, Acts xvi. 20; it is prefixed for emphasis in ἡμῶν τὸ πολίτευμα, Phil. iii. 20, cf. W. u. s.; Rost ὃ 99, 4 p. 452 sqq. 7th ed. adduces a multitude of exx. fr. Grk. auth.; [ef. Kriiger, § 47, 9, 12 who states the rule as follows: when joined to a subst. having the art. the reflexive gen., with αὐτοῦ ipsius, and ἀλλήλων, requires the attributive position, the personal gen., and αὐτοῦ ejus, the partitive position ]. 4. τί ἐμοὶ (ἡμῖν) καὶ cot (ὑμῖν) ; what have 1 (we) to do with thee (you) ? [ef. B. 138 (121); W. 211 (198) ; 585 (544) }: Mt. viii. 29; Mk.i. 24; v. 7; Lk. viii. 28; Jn.ii.4; Heb. 721 ὅτ, Judg. xi. 12; 2K. iii. 13, 2S. xvi. 10; 2 Chr. xxxv. 21; 1 Esdr. i. 24; also in classic Greek; cf. Gell. n. a. 1, 2; Epict. diss. 2, 9, 16; τί ἡμῖν x. αὐτῷ, ibid. 1,1, 16; τί ἐμοὶ καὶ αὐτοῖς, ibid. 1, 27, 13; 22,15. τί yap μοι, what does it concern me? what have I to do ete.: 1 Co. v.12; ef. Bos, Ellipses Graec. p. 599, ed. Schaefer; Bnhdy. p. 98; Kriiger § 48, 3, 9; Kihner ii. 364 sq.; [B. as above, also 394 (337); W. 586 (545)].

ἐγώ egō 2x

I, gen., ἐμοῦ [μου], dat., ἐμοί [μοι], acc., ἐμέ [με]

ἐγώ, gen, etc., ἐμοῦ, ἐμοί, ἐμέ (enclitic μου, μοι, με), pl. ἡμεῖς, -ῶν, -ῖν, -ᾶς, pers. pron. I. The nom. is usually emphatic, when expressed as subjc, as in Mt 3:11, Mk 1:8, Lk 3:16, al. But often there is no apparent emphasis, as Mt 10:16, Jo 10:17; ἰδοὺ ἐ. (= Heb. הִנֵּנִי, cf. I Ki 3:8), Ac 9:10; ἐ. (like Heb. אֲנִי), I am, Jo 1:23 (LXX), Ac 7:32 (LXX).

The enclitic forms (v. supr.) are used with nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, where there is no emphasis: ἐν τ. πατρί μου, Jo 14:20; μου τ. λόγους, Mt 7:24; ὀπίσω μου, Mt 3:11; ἰσχυρότερός μου, ib.; λέγει μοι, Re 5:5; also with the prep. πρός, as Mk 9:19, al. The full forms (ἐμοῦ, etc.) are used with the other prepositions, as δι' ἐμοῦ, ἐν ἐμοί, εἰς ἐμέ, etc., also for emphasis, as Lk 10:16, Jo 7:23, Mk 14:7, al.

The gen. μου and ἡμῶν are often used for the poss. pronouns ἐμός, ἡμέτερος: τ. λαόν μου, Mt 2:6; μου τῂ ἀπιστιᾳ, Mk 9:24.

τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί ( = Heb. וָלָךְ מַה־לִי, Jg 11:12, al.), i.e. what have we in common: Mt 8:29, Mk 1:24 5:7, Lk 8:28, Jo 2:4; τί γάρ μοι, I Co 5:2.

The interchange of ἐγώ and ἡμεῖς, common in π., appears in Pauline Epp. (v. M, Pr., 86f., M, Th., 131f.).

κἀγώ (= καὶ ἐγώ, and I, even I, I also: Mt 2:8, Lk 2:48, Jo 6:56, Ro 3:7, I Co 7:40, al.; κἀγώ . . . καί, both . . . and, Jo 7:28.

ἐγώ. Deissmann (ZAZ p. 134 ff.) has drawn attention to the parallels to the solemn use of the first personal pronoun in the Fourth Gospel that may be adduced from inscriptions and magical texts. Thus in an inscr. in honour of Isis from Ios, written in ii/iii A.p., the contents of which are preChristian, we find —Elows ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ τ[ύρανν]ος πάσης χόρας.. ἐγὼ νόμους ἀνθρώποις ἐθέμην . . ἐγώ εἰμι Kpdvov θυγάτηρ πρεσβυτάτη α΄. And similarly in the magical papyrus P Lond 4645 (iv/a.p.) (=I. p. 69) ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ ἀκέφαλος δαίμων . . ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια ὁ μεισῶν ἀδικήματα γείνεσθαι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ α΄. With the construction of the phrase τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί ; in Jn 24 we may compare BGU IV. 1141°8 (n.c. 14) ἐδίδουν αὐτῷ διαστολὰς μηδὲν αὐτῶι καὶ ἐκείνωι εἶναι : for its meaning see Ε΄. C. Burkitt in 77:5 xiii. p- 594f., where it is rendered, ‘‘ What have I and thou to do with that ?” On the difficult question of the substitution of ἡμεῖς for ἐγώ see Proleg. p. 86f., and the Appended Note on “‘ Did St. Paul use the Epistolary Plural?” in Milligan 7 ess. p- 131 f., where the following passages are cited in support of the view that the two numbers can be used interchangeably—P Hib I. 4445 (8.6. 253) ἐγράψαμεν . . ὁρῶντες . . Suny, P Tebt 1. 58% 15 (B.c. 111) εὑρήκαμεν . . εὗρον, P Par 4311. (B.c. 154) (= Witkowski¥, p. 79) εἰ ἔρρωσθαι, ἔρρωμαι δὲ καὐτοί, P Flor I. 347 (A.D. 342) ὁμολογῶ ὄμνυντες.

ἡμῶν (hēmōn) — of us. ἐγώ, I: pronoun of the first person:—Epic dialect mostly ἐγών before vowels (so in Doric dialect, before consonants, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; Boeotian dialect ἱών [Refs 2nd c.AD+]:— strengthened ἔγωγε, I at least, for my part, indeed, for myself (more frequently in Attic dialect than in [Refs 8th c.BC+]: Doric dialect ἐγώνγα [Refs 7th c.BC+]: Boeotian dialect ἱώνγα [Refs 6th c.BC+]; ἱώνει [Refs]; ἰώγα [Refs 5th c.BC+]: Laconian dialect and Tarentum dialect ἐγώνη, [Refs 2nd c.AD+]

II. oblique cases from a different root, genitive ἐμοῦ, enclitic μο; Ionic dialect and Epic dialect ἐμέο, ἐμεῦ, μευ, also ἐμέθεν [Refs 8th c.BC+]; Aeolic dialect ἔμεθεν [Refs 7th c.BC+]; Doric dialect ἐμέος, ἐμεῦς, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; Boeotian dialect ἐμοῦς [Refs 6th c.BC+] — _dative_ ἐμοί, enclitic μοι (which may be compared with Sanskrit genitive me in κλῦθί μοι [Refs 8th c.BC+]; Doric dialect ἐμίν [Refs 5th c.BC+]; Tarentum dialect ἐμίνη [Refs 3rd c.BC+], enclitic μ; [Refs 5th c.AD+]

III. dual, nominative and accusative, νῶι, we two, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; accusative νῶιν Zenod.ad [Refs 8th c.BC+]; Attic dialect νώ [Refs 8th c.BC+]; νῶι dative, [Refs 5th c.AD+]; νῶιν, ={ἡμῖν}, [Refs 4th c.AD+]

IV. plural, nominative ἡμεῖς (ἡμέες falsa lectio in [Refs 5th c.BC+]; Aeolic dialect ἄμμες [Refs 8th c.BC+]; Doric dialect ἁμές [Refs 7th c.BC+]; Ionic dialect ἡμέων [Refs 8th c.BC+]; Aeolic dialect ἀμμέων [Refs 7th c.BC+]; ἄμμων [Refs 2nd c.AD+]; Doric dialect ἁμέων [Refs 7th c.BC+]; ἁμῶν [[Refs 5th c.BC+]; Cretan dialect, Boeotian dialect ἁμίων [Refs 5th c.BC+] (ῐ) (or ἧμιν Aristarch.ad [Refs 8th c.BC+]; also rarely in Comedy texts, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; Aeolic dialect ἄμμῐν, ἄμμῐ, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; Doric dialect also ἁμίν or ἇμιν, [Refs 7th c.BC+]; with ῑ, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; Ionic dialect ἡμέας [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ἥμεας [Refs 8th c.BC+]; Aeolic dialect ἄμμε [Refs 8th c.BC+], Theocr.8.25; Doric dialect ἁμέ [Refs 6th c.BC+]—On these dialectic varieties, [Refs 2nd c.AD+] ff. (Cf. Sanskrit ahám (ἐγών), accusative plural asmā´n; for νώ cf. Sanskrit nau):—frequently in answers, as an affirmative, especially in form ἔγωγε, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; οὗτος ἐ. here am [Refs 5th c.BC+]; rarely with Article, τὸν ἐμέ myself, [Refs 5th c.BC+] the Self, the Ego, [Refs 5th c.AD+]; τίς ὢν οὗτος ὁ ἐγὼ τυγχάν; [Refs 4th c.BC+]; τί τοῦτ᾽ ἐμο; ἡμῖν τί τοῦτ᾽ ἔστ; Latin quid mea hoc refert ? [Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἐγ; in a question, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἡμεῖς the self, ἔνθα δὴ ἡμεῖς μάλιστα [Refs 3rd c.AD+]