Joh 10:12 ou- — The construction is challenging in that there are two possessive words:

this relative pronoun and the adjective i;dia. I have diagrammed the understanding
reflected in the versions, which merge the two into one possessive idea comprising the
predicate after ouvk e;stin. An alternative construction would construe the pronoun as
modifying pro,bata: “Whose sheep are not his own.” “Whose sheep” would have the
sense of a flock or portion of a flock that the hired hand has been charged to look after;
i;dia would have a more intimate sense of ownership of or ultimate responsibility for the
sheep. If I understand the ways of the ancient world on this point, the shepherd most
often would not be the owner of the sheep, but he would be a member of the owner’s
household and would derive his living from the flock itself, as Jacob did when
shepherding Laban’s flock. For practical purposes, he had no existence independently of
the owner’s approval of his work and provision for him. A hired hand, however, had a
very loose relationship with the household and derived no inherent benefit from the
flock’s welfare. It is easy for the hired hand to lose a job if necessary to save his limbs or
life. But the sheep are the shepherd’s life, so he will defend theirs with his. So the hired
hand may have sheep in a loosely possessive sense (ou-) while not being able to call
them i;dia. I am attracted to this understanding, “Whose sheep are not his own,” but I
defer to the versions. 2Pe 3:3,16 and possibly Act 24:23 can be cited in support of the
versions’ construing i;dioj and a genitive together as a single possessive idea. The
distance between the two words in this verse can be explained in terms of the necessity of
the relative pronoun’s being placed early and the naturalness of the end position of i;dia.
On the other hand, though, the word order also very naturally produces “Whose sheep are
not his own.”
Joh 10:12 ou- — The construction is challenging in that there are two possessive words:
this relative pronoun and the adjective i;dia. I have diagrammed the understanding
reflected in the versions, which merge the two into one possessive idea comprising the
predicate after ouvk e;stin. An alternative construction would construe the pronoun as
modifying pro,bata: “Whose sheep are not his own.” “Whose sheep” would have the
sense of a flock or portion of a flock that the hired hand has been charged to look after;
i;dia would have a more intimate sense of ownership of or ultimate responsibility for the
sheep. If I understand the ways of the ancient world on this point, the shepherd most
often would not be the owner of the sheep, but he would be a member of the owner’s
household and would derive his living from the flock itself, as Jacob did when
shepherding Laban’s flock. For practical purposes, he had no existence independently of
the owner’s approval of his work and provision for him. A hired hand, however, had a
very loose relationship with the household and derived no inherent benefit from the
flock’s welfare. It is easy for the hired hand to lose a job if necessary to save his limbs or
life. But the sheep are the shepherd’s life, so he will defend theirs with his. So the hired
hand may have sheep in a loosely possessive sense (ou-) while not being able to call
them i;dia. I am attracted to this understanding, “Whose sheep are not his own,” but I
defer to the versions. 2Pe 3:3,16 and possibly Act 24:23 can be cited in support of the
versions’ construing i;dioj and a genitive together as a single possessive idea. The
distance between the two words in this verse can be explained in terms of the necessity of
the relative pronoun’s being placed early and the naturalness of the end position of i;dia.
On the other hand, though, the word order also very naturally produces “Whose sheep are
not his own.”