[B-Greek] Third-person commands

Yancy Smith Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
Thu Nov 10 17:38:41 EST 2005


Don,
	I think we are all in a muddle here about an assumed difference  
between "rhetorical effect" and "grammatical meaning." Let me propose  
a counter example that turned up in my beginning Greek class today.  
We were reading John 9:21

					HLIKIAN 	ECEI, 	AUTOS 			PERI EAUTOU 	LALHSEI
Pony translation: 	Age 		he-has, he-himself 	concerning himself 	he- 
will speak."
Better English: 		"He is of age, let him answer for himself."

	Now, without a doubt, the Greek has what we call a future indicative  
third person singular of LALEW, he will speak. However, the future  
indicative is being used very much like an aorist imperative. We also  
do things like this, but usually in the second person, e.g., "You  
WILL pick up your room!" So, one thing we should see is that part of  
the meaning is the mismatch between literal or "grammatical" meaning  
and intended meaning in context. Authors and writers, hearers and  
speakers take note of this fact and use it to rhetorical advantage  
all the time. But to say, "that is not the grammatical meaning" in  
this case borders on the pedantic.
	 Let us say "grammatical meaning" is that meaning which one assigns  
a morpheme independent of context. Or, perhaps, it is the first thing  
one thinks of when one hears or reads something. This would be the  
sort of "meaning" one would see in a dictionary or a first year  
grammar. However, "grammatical meaning" or "meaning in abstract" is  
mostly useless for interpretation. It is like a rule of thumb, an  
abstraction and sometimes a DIStraction. This is especially true when  
New Testament writers or anyone else makes use of the mismatch  
between "usual" or "grammatical" or "literal" meaning and the  
"contextual" meaning to create emphasis, nuance, irony or humor.
	The meaning we are usually interested in is the meaning in context  
and the language we are usually interested in for perposes of  
interpretaion is language in use. In other words, we don't start with  
the assumption that the "grammatical meaning" is the REAL meaning and  
then try to explain away all the exceptions (like your "prayer  
language," which is really the first step down the slippery slope to  
the "deep end" you may think I have lept from.) The REAL meaning is  
the meaning that is out there in the myriad, messy, creative ways  
language is being used and was being used on the streets of Ephesus  
and with Paul as he paced back and forth dictating, weeping, and  
praying over a letter with a secretary at his side.
	So, now that I have proven to be a 24 carrat pedant myself, what has  
this to do with 1 Cor 7:15 CORIZESQW. The term Greek grammarians use  
for "imperative" is PARASTATIKOS -H -ON, which means "able to exhort"  
or "able to arouse." The LATIN grammatical term "IMPERATIVUS" comes  
from impero I command, levy, rule (over). No end of grief has come  
from using Latin grammatical terms for Greek grammar. Talk about  
mismatch! So, the form in 1 Corinthians is, we might say, a  
parastatic third person. Now, in this case, the third person  
parastatic is not intended, and probably CANNOT be intended to  
"exhort or arouse" the non-Christian, unless we assume that the  
Corinthians were incorrigible gossips and Paul assumed they would  
pass the note along to the unbelieving spouse, etc, etc. Of course  
its audience are the believers and it probably had all sorts of  
intended and unintended effects. But, again, what is the meaning for  
the hearers of the letter?

Yancy
	




More information about the B-Greek mailing list