EGEIRW and ANhISTHMI
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Aug 16 06:57:55 EDT 2002
At 6:13 PM +1000 8/16/02, Julian Duckworth wrote:
>Dear B-Greekers
>
>EGEIRW and ANhISTHMI both mean 'to rise' or 'to raise'. Both words and
>their derivatives are in almost equal regular use in the New Testament.
>May I check out their distinction with those who might know more than I
>do. Looking at various Scriptural contexts I get the strong feeling that
>EGEIRW means 'to rise from' and ANhISTHMI means 'to rise towards'. In
>other words, loosely, EGEIRW suggests recognising the difference between
>where one once was and where one now is, and ANhISTHMI
>suggests recognising the difference between where one now is and where one
>aims to be. Is this a legitimate distinction? Is there any etymology to
>support the idea?
>Thanks if you can advise. I'm curious.
In view of the fact that this verb was a focal point of last November's
discussions of middle and passive morphology and semantics, I cite the most
relevant of my posts from that period:
>Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:01:08 -0500
>To: Biblical Greek <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>Subject: [b-greek] EGEIRW and ANISTHMI--Intransitive, Middle, and Passive
>
>I can't resist making a final comment on this matter, but my concerns are
>now completely removed from the initial question of the other thread.
>
>At 11:54 AM +0100 11/8/01, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>You are probably right that I overstated the case. I have in the meantime
>>looked more at the difference between EGEIRW and ANISTHMI.
>>
>>In view of our earlier discussion of active, middle and passive, I find it
>>interesting that EGEIRW occurs in active in the transitive sense of "cause
>>to get up" whereas it occurs commonly in the middle/passive form in either
>>the middle sense of "get up" or the passive sense of "being raised up".
>>
>>ANISTHMI is quite different. It never occurs in the morphological passive
>>paradigm and it is rare in the middle. The middle form may have either the
>>middle or passive meaning.
>>
>>In the future tense the active forms of ANISTHMI are apparently transitive
>>in meaning "raise up" but the middle forms are intransitive "rising up".
>>Outside the future we have active forms in the vast majority of cases, but
>>the meaning of this active form is either semantically active "raise up" or
>>semantically middle "rise", depending on context.
>
>In my judgment the two verbs overlap considerably in range of meaning and
>usage although they are certainly not fully synonymous. ANISTHMI/ANISTAMAI
>means most basically "raise/rise from a settled state" (whether the settled
>state be reclining, sitting, or spatial position)--or, with an alternative
>sense in the ANA- prefix, "re-establish" or "rise/rouse in rebellion",
>whereas EGEIRW/EGEIROMAI means most basically "rouse/arise"--generally from
>a recumbent position, but quite commonly from sleep, or by metaphorical
>extension, death.
>
>ANISTHMI has an active/causative first aorist ANESTHSA; ANISTAMAI, the
>intransitive (or would someone want to call it 'passive'?) has a 'third'
>aorist, ANESTHN. And although hISTHMI/hISTAMAI does have a passive
>morphoparadigm ESTAQHN (which may or may not, in any given instance, be
>equivalent to ESTHN, according to the perspective one takes upon it), there
>is no instance of any passive form *ANESTAQHN to be found in the GNT.
>
>EGEIRW has an active/causative first aorist HGEIRA; EGEIROMAI the
>intransitive MP has an older, rarely attested, second aorist morphoparadigm
>HGROMHN (used, as often archaic forms are used, in poetry), but that was
>supplanted relatively early by the "passive" morphoparadigm, HGHERQHN. One
>rather odd fact about this verb is that it appears in the 2 sg. pres.
>imperative form EGEIRE 14 times in an intransitive sense (Mt. 9:5, 10:8; Mk
>2:9, 11, 3:3, 5:41; 10:49; Lk 5:23, 24, 6:8, 8:54; Jn 5:8; Acts 3:6; Eph.
>5:14; Rev. 11:1). Now we might argue over whether or not HGERQHN is passive
>or intransitive in a particular instance; unquestionably it is passive in
>numerous instances, but there are enough instances where it is quite
>clearly functioning as the aorist equivalent of the middle (the person
>rises of his/her own initiative): Mk 2:12 (in response to the EGEIRE
>command); Mt 8:15, Jn 11:29; Acts 9:8. I think one might well argue that
>several instances of HGERQH without a qualifying agent construction or EK
>NEKRWN are equivalent to ANESTH where it too is used of resurrection.
>
>To this I would add a note bearing significantly on our discussions of
>middle and passive aorists in particular but on the semantic difference
>between middle and aorist more generally; I think it is a mistake to
>suppose that deliberate volitional involvement of the subject in the action
>is required in a verb that is to be understood as middle. EGEIROMAI is one
>such verb: although it may certainly be passive in sense if the person is
>awakened by an external agency or instrument such as a startling noise or
>light, yet one may awake spontaneously. And there are other such verbs:
>KOIMAOMAI ("fall asleep" although a passive sense, "be lulled to sleep" is
>certainly also possible); MAINOMAI: when one goes into a fit of madness, do
>we assume that it is some demonic visitation, or isn't this an involuntary
>sort of behavior? Kimmo has said that he thinks EGENETO is fundamentally
>passive; would he say this also of GINOMAI? Perhaps it's worth recalling
>that verbs of this sort often have an intransitive perfect 'active'
>morphoparadigm: GEGONA, PEPOIQA (PEIQOMAI): how are we to understand these
>forms in relationship to SEMANTIC active voice?
>
>Ultimately, I think that the reason why a single morphoparadigm serves to
>represent both semantic middle and semantic passive in most Greek tenses is
>that the distinction between the middle and passive sense, although often
>enough obvious, is often enough not worth the effort to distinguish. And I
>still am inclined to believe that the "passive" morphoparadigm in the Koine
>Greek aorist and future, frequently represents a semantic "middle" and/or
>semantic intransitive--and that this flexibility was always within the
>range of meaning of the morphoparadigm from the time it was first invented.
>--
>
>Carl W. Conrad
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list