"Matthew 28 16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them."
It reads "...into a mountain where Jesus had..."
Another version reads: "...the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into the mountain where Jesus had appointed them."
In my understanding, using an indefinite article before the word "mountain" (i.e., "a mountain where Jesus had appointed them") in this case is okay because it is telling the readers a fact that Jesus had appointed them on a mountain, which has been probably unknown to the readers. The use of a definite article before the word "mountain" (i.e., "the mountain where Jesus....") is also okay and it is telling the readers that there were no other mountains where Jesus had appointed them.
I would like to hear native speakers' opinions.
By the way, I am not a Christian, but I respect Christians.
May I add the following question?
A different version reads: "But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had given them orders to go."
"where Jesus had given them orders to go" and "where Jesus had appointed them" seem to be different from each other in meaning. I have the impression that "where Jesus had appointed them" means "the place where Jesus had appointed them apostles." Could Christians answer this question?
Thank you in advance.
Top answer
As I understand it the disciples had been told a specific place to meet Jesus so I suppose "the" is the correct article. I wouldn't advise using the KJV as a guide to modern English, it was written 400 years ago after all, and the translators were at least as concerned with the poetry of their language as with its grammatical correctness.
— RayH
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
As I understand it the disciples had been told a specific place to meet Jesus so I suppose "the" is the correct article.
I wouldn't advise using the KJV as a guide to modern English, it was written 400 years ago after all, and the translators were at least as concerned with the poetry of their language as with its grammatical correctness.
Thank you for your advice Ray H and Old Man Gordon. Apart from the Bible, I would like to make sure if it is possible to say like this when I talk to somebody.
"I went to a mountain where I had seen a deer before."
And even if it was the only one mountain where I had seen a deer, this is new information to the person I talk to. Therefore, is "I went to a mountain...." as well as
Snappy: There are many translations of the Bible. I love the King James version because of its poetic expressiveness. But, as others have posted, it is written in the contemporary English of 400 years ago. The English language has changed a lot over 400 years, in both grammar and vocabulary. The King James uses "thee" and "thou" for "you" and older form (ending -th) of the third person singul
Thank you for your information, but I'm a little confused.
In the thread of "This is a/the * that," you gave me the following advise. Quote If I had told my friend on the phone that I had bought a book, then when I see them later I say "This is the book I bought - the one I was telling you about." If I had never mentioned it before, I would show them t
Snappy, We use the indefinite article to introduce something into a conversation and then the definite thereafter, maybe something like this: We went to a beautiful mountain. On the mountain we saw a deer. The deer had been hit by a car.