[B-Greek] Third-person commands
Dr. Don Wilkins
drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net
Thu Nov 17 16:30:02 EST 2005
Yancy, very well said and researched! This is just the kind of input I was
hoping for. I think you have established the necessity of the second person
being the agent to effect the command, especially in the case of inanimate
objects belonging to the 2p.
Having given it further thought, let me suggest the following as an
explanation. We all know that an active statement can be turned into passive
by switching the direct object of the active to the subject of the passive,
and the subject of the active to the agent of the passive. This can involve
a change of person if e.g. the subject of the active statement was 2p. Let
me suggest that this is essentially what happens with 3p commands in the
examples you cite. That is, the 2p command "Do this" is switched to "This is
to be done [by you]," where the agent (you) is implied but not expressed. I
thought of several everyday examples, such as "Do the dishes before I get
back" vis-a-vis "The dishes are to be done before I get back." A 3p command
like "No one is to know about this" may not seem to fit at first, but what
we really have is "Do not inform anyone" vs. "no one is to know," where
"know" is an equivalent to the passive of "inform". We find this in Greek in
such pairs as TITHHMI and KEIMAI, where the latter can be used as the
lexical passive of the former.
So "Your right hand is not to know what your left hand is doing" is
equivalent to "Your right hand is not to be informed [by you] of what your
left hand is doing," and is the passive version of "Don't inform your right
hand, etc." "Let him be to you as a tax collector etc." is equivalent to "He
is to be treated by you" and can be viewed as the passive version of "Treat
him like...."
If we can agree on that, then the next question is what is the rhetorical or
semantic difference in effectively turning an active 2p imperative into a
passive 3p. One thing that is immediately clear is that it is a way to
eliminate an explicit reference to the second person. That is why it would
be done when an inferior is addressing a superior, as in the language of
prayer. A direct 2p command might be presumptuous. Along this same line
maybe a softening of 2p commands is the explanation (or an explanation)
elsewhere. I don't know for certain whether 1 Cor. 5:17 is a true, active 3p
command or if fits this "passive" category, but let's assume the latter.
Then I would say that Paul could have told the congregation (or the
believing spouse) to "order the bum out," and that "he is to leave" is
softer, equivalent to "he is to be ordered out by you." I find it helpful to
think about a parent telling a child "The dishes are to be done before you
leave" vis-a-vis "Do the dishes before you leave," where the first sentence
is perhaps a little less confrontational.
Of course I don't mean to suggest that you *do* agree with my hypothesis. I
would appreciate any comments you (or others) might have.
Don Wilkins
...
This business of third person commands raises all sorts of interesting
questions about grammar, semantics, and pragmatics. My contention is that
grammar is only one factor in any communicative situation it may be used
pragmatically in many, even sometimes surprising, ways that alter the
semantics of the grammar. That is, the category of "imperative" and the form
"command" are able to be given more meaning without completely breaking down
immediately. Take for instance the third person singualar commands in the
gospel of Matthew. They may be analyzed in several ways, but these
categories suggested themselve to me as I went through them:
...
The class of commands given to inanimate objects, for example Mt 5:16 hOTWS
LHMPSATW TO FWS hHUMWN and Mt 5:37 ESTW DE hO LOGOS hUMWN NAI NAI present an
interesting dilemma because they are definitely third person in form but
addressed to something that cannot possibly respond to the command. Thus,
they MUST be understood as directed to the 2nd person. I would suggest that
this kind of third person command has to have the intervention of the 2nd
person and the speakers and the hearers know this, it is another way of
giving a 2nd person command. This is also true of 3rd person commands to the
body parts of 2nd persons (Mt 6:3). Another way of expressing 2nd person
commands.
In this same vein, we may see Mt 6:3 and Mt 8:17 as "commands" to 3rd
persons that the third persons can not possibly carry out. hORATE MHDEIS
GINWSKETW. How would the third person have anything to do with this command
form at all. Again, this is simply an indirect form of 2nd person command.
The same is true for ESTW SOI hWSPER hO EQNIKOS KAI hO TELWNHS. Again,
though this is in third person command form, it can only be carried out by
the 2nd persons. The third person will only be the passive recipient of the
new attitude enjoined thereby on the 2nd persons.
The class of 3rd person command given in conjunction with a relative clause,
a participial phrase or a conditional clause that addresses some members of
the 2nd person audience as belonging to a class is also a way of directing a
command to 2nd persons. It is perhaps used for politeness and is often used
in legal pronouncements.
Then there are the third person commands given in the context of prayer.
If you count all these up, it seems that the 3rd person command form is more
often used as a form of command for 2nd persons, albeit polite or indirect,
rather than for a true 3rd person command.
Yancy
Yancy Smith
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu <mailto:Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu>
Brite Divinity School
Texas Christian University
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list