[B-Greek] Passive Imperative

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Sun Aug 14 17:03:47 EDT 2005


On Aug 14, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:

> Dear Carl,
>
>
>>
>> I do think that the "passive imperative" is something of a misnomer:
>> only if conceived as having middle voice can these imperatives have
>> any sense whatsoever as addressed to a second person that is to
>> undergo the action.  One cannot really say that KAQARISQHTI, ARQHTI,
>> and BLHQHTI are commands addressed to God or some external agent to
>> bring about the healing, lifting up, or hurling as directed in these
>> verb-forms: the commands are addressed to the person who has appealed
>> to Jesus and to the mountain: "get healed" -- i.e. "enter into a
>> state of health" or "rise up and plummet into the sea." And I think
>> you're right, Mitch, that these verbal forms make no sense whatsoever
>> if conceived as orders to the persons involved to suffer a fate
>> inflicted upon them by some external source. Even the English phrases
>> used to translate them make no sense: "be raised up and be hurled."
>> As second-person imperatives these forms require an implicit logic of
>> the addressee being somehow empowered to fulfill these commands.
>>
>> Our problems with such forms as these arise, I believe, from
>> application of thinking in terms of the English opposition of active
>> and passive to what one observes of the Greek opposition of active
>> and middle-passive, and from failure to appreciate the ambivalence of
>> the Greek middle-passive forms. We are helped, I think, to get closer
>> to understanding Greek usage if we appreciate the meaning of verbal
>> phrases using  "get" as an auxiliary verb with a "passive"
>> participle: "Get lost!" -- meaning "I don't want to see you any more"
>> -- "I want you to go somewhere out of my sight and sphere of  
>> action." 
>> or "I got soused last night" -- meaning "I drank so much last night
>> that I became intoxicated." Neither of these expressions really
>> implies that some agent other than the person addressed or
>> grammatical subject of the verb plays any role in bringing about the
>> indicated result.
>>
>
> HH: I feel quite comfortable with the middle-passive classification
> of verbs since Hebrew Niphal and Hithpael verbs can both be passive
> or middle. Context gives guidance as to which it is. But what about
> forms in Greek where there is a difference between middle and passive
> forms? There I would not expect flexibility, since otherwise why have
> a distinction in forms.

The question is a fair one, but it is one that I have dealt with in  
what I have written both on-list and in my writings listed at the  
page noted in my initial response in this thread. Those who don't  
want to take the trouble to read those writings may -- and  
unquestionably will --  go right on believing that there is a  
consistent difference between those forms.

There are, indeed, some instances of verbs where there is a clear  
distinction of meaning between middle and passive forms, but to a  
considerable measure such a distinction is elusive, even imaginary.  
There exist NT grammars that display in their appendices paradigms of  
LUW with both middle and passive aorist forms, despite the fact that  
the middle aorist of LUW does not appear in the Koine of the GNT. The  
truth is that the "passive" forms in -QHN were in the process of  
supplanting the older forms in -MHN and that the same semantic  
ambivalence attached to the -QHN forms as does to the MAI KTL. forms.

Three significant instances (there are others) of GNT verbs that  
display both a middle and a "passive" (-QH-) aorist form are pretty  
revealing:

     AGALLIAOMAI is really a middle-voice verb; there are two  
instances of the active in the GNT, one of these aorist (HGALLIASEN)  
in Lk 1:47; there are 8 instances of the middle voice, 4 in the  
present tense and 4 in the aorist; there is one single instance of  
the passive aorist (AGALLIAQHNAI in John 5:55); I challenge whoever  
will to show me that there's any real difference of meaning between  
AGALLIAQHNAI and a putative AGALLIASASQAI.

     GINOMAI appears 492x in the GNT; it is middle in 447 instances,  
"passive" (QH) in 45 instances; we have had threads on these aorists  
of GINOMAI in the GNT; I have argued that EGENOMHN and EGENHQHN both  
are used in the same way: each form may sometimes bear a sense that  
is more "passive" while at other times it may bear a sense that is  
more "middle."

     APOKRINOMAI appears 220x in the aorist tense in the GNT, of  
these 7 instances are middle (APEKRINAMHN KTL.) while 213 are  
"passive" (APEKRIQHN). Wallace in GGBB tries to argue that the middle  
forms are in a forensic context and deliberately archaizing, but in  
fact the forensic usage appears with forms of APEKRIQHN KTL. just as  
much as with APEKRINAMHN KTL.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list