[B-Greek] Analysis of middle-passive forms (was "John 11:4 and the Middle/Passive of DOXAZW")
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 19 12:23:06 EST 2011
And neither you nor I have ever transgressed (cough, cough, cough).
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 10:14:32 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Analysis of middle-passive forms (was "John 11:4 and the
Middle/Passive of DOXAZW")
<But why say "Jesus breaks the rules of grammar" since he most likely didn't
speak in Greek ? Besides, as every schoolboy knows these are the traditions
which the early church passed down to make its own argument and are not
necessarily the ipsissima verba Iesou ?>
Hi, George,
All I am saying is that I have no opinion about something I did not say. Aren't
there enough idiotic things that I HAVE said that we can dispute? :)
Here's what I meant: εν τῳ Ιησου τα γραμματικα λυεται. EN TWi IHSOU TA
GRAMMATIKA LUETAI.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 9:42:21 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Analysis of middle-passive forms (was "John 11:4 and the
Middle/Passive of DOXAZW")
Match wrote:
"Now, I understand why you misunderstood me, but when I said that Jesus breaks
the rules of grammar I meant to say nothing about his own diction. What I meant
was that statements ABOUT Jesus by his followers break the rules of grammar
because, since He is seen to be, among others things, both God and man by his
followers, ordinary logic, among other things, doesn't apply. I don't want to
get into this right now, but just wanted to make this clear. I said nothing
about Jesus' own grammatical abilities because I don't know anything about
this. (Not that that has stopped me before. :)"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why say "Jesus breaks the rules of grammar" since he most likely didn't
speak in Greek ? Besides, as every schoolboy knows these are the traditions
which the early church passed down to make its own argument and are not
necessarily the ipsissima verba Iesou ?
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 9:36:25 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Analysis of middle-passive forms (was "John 11:4 and the
Middle/Passive of DOXAZW")
Hi, Carl, thanks. Those are all helpful comments.
I guess I would just say that, for me, the most PRACTICAL APPLICATION of your
ideas on voice are:
1. If you see a passive, whether MAI SAI TAI or QHN QHS QH, don't just assume
that it is a passive. See if you can find some "middle" force. If not, then
fine, construe it as a passive. I think Bryant should be applauded for trying
this out with John 11:4, even if he turns out to be wrong.
2. If you see a verb that people call deponent, don't assume it is just an
active. See if you can find some "middle" force.
Further deponent sayeth naught.
Now, I understand why you misunderstood me, but when I said that Jesus breaks
the rules of grammar I meant to say nothing about his own diction. What I meant
was that statements ABOUT Jesus by his followers break the rules of grammar
because, since He is seen to be, among others things, both God and man by his
followers, ordinary logic, among other things, doesn't apply. I don't want to
get into this right now, but just wanted to make this clear. I said nothing
about Jesus' own grammatical abilities because I don't know anything about
this. (Not that that has stopped me before. :)
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
Cc: B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 8:43:30 AM
Subject: Analysis of middle-passive forms (was "John 11:4 and the Middle/Passive
of DOXAZW")
On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:
> Carl wrote
>
> <The verb DOXAZW is transitive and normally takes an object; I can see no
> direct-reflexive "make himself glorious" or indirect-reflexive "make glorious
>
>
> for his own sake" here. There's no reason to see this as anything other than a
>
>
> passive.>
>
> Hi, Carl,
>
> Yes, that's part of the process of getting to the heart of voice matters,
>trying
>
> to figure out which verbs lend themselves more to an active-passive split and
> which are more murky and are comfortable slipping into and out of their middle
> dress.
But your formation yesterday was, "one should take any OMAI or QHN form as
a middle unless you HAVE to take it as a passive." That strikes me as about as
useful a rule as "one should assume that any day is Sunday unless it is Monday
or Tuesday ... "
I may at some point in my earlier work on ancient Greek voice have given the
impression that I thought any middle-passive verb-form whatsoever, so long as
it isn't accompanied by an agent or instrumental construction indicating an
external cause of the action/process referred, should be considered potentially
middle. I do think that some verb-forms once assumed to be passive could as
well or better be understood as middles, but I also think that some verb-forms
that are not marked for external cause are pretty clearly passive and should be
so understood, particularly in view of their usage as indicated in lexical
evidence cited in a dictionary,ultimately examined in instances of usage in
the relevant textual evidence. Verbs with MP forms that are transitive and
that regularly take a direct complement are almost surely to be understood
as passive. I've found examination of usage in the GNT a helpful indicator
for such cases in the GNT.
> Yes, I think you can take this as a middle. I once came up with something I
> called the Carl Conrad Rule of Mediopassivity, which stated that one should
>take
>
> any OMAI or QHN form as a middle unless you HAVE to take it as a passive. Carl
>
>
> disavowed this rule ("a crude simplification of something I didn't really say,"
>
>
> or some such) but I still live by this rule. Call it the Lightman Rule of
> Mediopassivity if you want. Just spell my name right!
> I think you have used the term transparently transitive for verbs like
> APOKTEINW. Is DOXAZW transparently transitive?
I won't cite the whole set of citations here, but it's easy enough to check them
out.
Accordance gives a concordance of passages in which the verb occurs:
δοξάζω to think, suppose; to glorify, extol, venerate
Matt 5:16; 6:2; 9:8; 15:31; Mark 2:12; Luke 2:20; 4:15; 5:25–26;
7:16; 13:13; 17:15; 18:43; 23:47; John 7:39; 8:54; 11:4; 12:16, 23, 28;
13:31–32; 14:13; 15:8; 16:14; 17:1, 4–5, 10; 21:19; Acts 3:13; 4:21; 11:18;
13:48; 21:20; Rom 1:21; 8:30; 11:13; 15:6, 9; 1 Cor 6:20; 12:26; 2 Cor 3:10;
9:13; Gal 1:24; 2 Th 3:1; Heb 5:5; 1 Pet 1:8; 2:12; 4:11, 16; Rev 15:4; 18:7
My judgment is that it IS transparently transitive. There is one reflexive
usage and it is insructive regarding the notion that DOXAZW in John 11:4
should be viewed as reflexive middle in sense:
John 8:54 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· ἐὰν ἐγὼ δοξάσω ἐμαυτόν, ἡ δόξα μου
οὐδέν ἐστιν· ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε
ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν,
[PEKRIQH IHSOUS· EAN EGW DOXASW EMAUTON, hH DOXA MOU
OUDEN ESTIN· ESTIN hO PATHR MOU hO DOXAZWN ME,
hON hUMEIS LEGETE hOTI QEOS hHMWN ESTIN]
> Awhile back on a thread, we talked about the voice of SWiZW. Since then,
> noticing it all over the place inside and outside of the Greek NT, I find that
>
>
> it is not comfortable wearing middle clothes. It really does lend itself to
>pure
>
> passives, not middles. Greek verbs are like people. You have hang out with
> them in different circumstances to figure out what makes them tick.
With that I agree. But this is where software searches of a tagged Greek text
can be very helpful. I've checked out SWZW and I've found only one text
in the GNT that raises the question:
Acts 2:40 ἑτέροις τε λόγοις πλείοσιν διεμαρτύρατο καὶ παρεκάλει
αὐτοὺς λέγων· σώθητε ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς ταύτης.
[hETEROIS TE LOGOIS PLEIOSIN DIEMARTURATO KAI PAREKALEI
AUTOUS LEGWN· SWQHTE APO THS GENEAS THS SKOLIAS TAUTHS.]
I would say that SWZW is indeed a transitive verb and that it ordinarily takes
a direct object, but I think it can be used reflexively. SWQHTE here in Acts
2:40 has the "passive" morphology, but I think it has to be understood in the
sense "save yourselves.' Even the KJV gives, "save yourselves." Even if the
salvation is to come from another source, the initiative must come from the
persons addressed. I would argue that the same is true in the case of passive
forms of BAPTIZW that are in the imperative. We've argued about this one
in the past on this list. I would agree that this verb is ordinarily transitive,
but
it seems to me pretty clear that the two imperative instances of this verb in
the GNT are both middle:
Acts 2:38 Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ
βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν
τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
[PETROS DE PROS AUTOUS· METANOHSATE, [FHSIN,] KAI
BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU
EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN KAI LHMYESQE THN DWREAN
TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS. ]
Acts 22:16 καὶ νῦν τί μέλλεις; ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι
τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.
[KAI NUN TI MELLEIS; ANASTAS BAPTISAI KAI APOLOUSAI
TAS hAMARTIAS SOU EPIKALESAMENOS TO ONOMA AUTOU.]
BAPTISQHTW "Let him submit to baptism" (not "baptize himself."
BAPTISAI "Get yourself baptized" (not "baptize yourself."
> What will happen now, is that I will start noticing DOXAZW and will get a sense
>
>
> of how transparently transitive it may be. We'll see, but George S's notion
> that the verb in the middle might mean "I fill myself up with splendor" is
> intriguing.
And again, I suggest comparison of that version with what John cites Jesus
as saying in 8:54. Perhaps I was wrong, but I had thought George's comment
in response to the question what an understanding of DOXASQHI in 11:4 as
a middle would mean ("Full of it") was intended to be humorous. Perhaps I
was mistaken.
> Of course Jesus breaks the rules of grammar. If the Greeks thought that DOXA
> came to a man and not from within him, this would not apply to Jesus. Does
>Jesus
>
> ever do anything for his own sake? Does he ever not? We all know that the
> gospel makes analyzing Greek voice, and Greek in general, even more tricky.
I'm not sure whether you're referring to something I said or not. I did write
you offlist suggesting that Jesus didn't always gave the kind of answer you
could expect: e.g. doesn't necessarily give an answer about purpose even if
the question is asked about purpose. But I'm not so sure that we have the
ipsissima verba of Jesus in Greek -- I wouldn't be surprised that Jesus spoke
some Greek, but I suspect that he ordinarily spoke Aramaic. So I wouldn't
begin to offer an opinion on Jesus' grammatical competence in Biblical
Greek.
> ________________________________
> From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
> To: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
> Cc: B Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 3:24:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 11:4 and the Middle/Passive of DOXAZW
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:28 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryant J. Williams III"
>> <bjwvmw at com-pair.net>
>> To: "'B Greek'" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: 19. februar 2011 05:45
>> Subject: [B-Greek] John 11:4 and the Middle/Passive of DOXAZW
>>
>>
>>> Dear List,
>>>
>>> I am curious about the following:
>>>
>>> Ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Αὕτη ἡ ἀσθένεια οὐκ ἔστιν πρὸς θάνατον, ἀλλʼ ὑπὲρ
>
>
>>> τῆς
>>> δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ διʼ αὐτῆς.
>>>
>>> AKOUSAS DE hO IHSOUS EIPEN, AUTH hH ASQENEIA OUK ESTIN PROS QANATON, ALL'
>>> hUPER
>>> DOXHS TOU QEOU, hINA DOXASQHi hO hOIOS TOU QEOU DI' AUTHS.
>>>
>>> My question concerns δοξασθῇ DOXASQHi. The lexicons give it as Aorist
Passive
>>> Subjunctive 3rd Person Singular. Thus, after hINA + Subjunctive we have a
>>> purpose clause, but my question is it really a Passive or more like a
>>> Middle/Passive giving it the idea of "for the purpose of the Son of God
>>> glorified in Himself through it"? This may be a stretch, but with the QH
>> ending
>>> I really wonder if this is not a Middle.
>>>
>>> En Xristwi,
>>>
>>> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>>
>> But again, we don't have a purpose clause here. We do have the ellipsis with
>> ALL'. This particular sickness (emphasis on THIS) is not towards death.
>>However,
>>
>> now that is has happened, it will be for the glory of God, resulting in the Son
>>
>>
>> of God being honored/raised up/glorified/seen as great through it (the
>> sickness).
>>
>> I see no reason to take the verb as anything but passive. Jesus did not glorify
>>
>>
>> himself. It was God's intervention, so it first brings glory to God, but by
>> extension also glory to his Son.
>
> Nor do I, and I'm pleased that, if there is to be such a "rule of
> medio-passivity" ("If it ain't clearly marked as passive, then it must be
> middle") as Mark Lightman prefers to apply in this instance, that he has
>adopted
>
> that rule as his own; I certainly don't acknowledge it as mine. The verb DOXAZW
>
>
> is transitive and normally takes an object; I can see no direct-reflexive
> "make himself glorious" or indirect-reflexive "make glorious for his own sake"
> here. There's no reason to see this as anything other than a passive.
>
>> CEV: "His sickness won't end in death. It will bring glory to God and his
> Son."
>
> And I'll have to agree with Iver on this one too. And it should be noted that
> John's usage of the verb DOXAZW is consistently with reference to the death of
> Jesus as the manifestation of God's glory. The raising of Lazarus is the
> "trigger" in the Johannine sequence leading to the crucifixion. NET has a nice
>
>
> note here, i.e. with reference to John 11:4): "So that the Son of God may be
> glorified through it. These statements are highly ironic: For Lazarus, the
> sickness did not end in his death, because he was restored to life. But for
> Jesus himself, the miraculous sign he performed led to his own death, because
>it
>
> confirmed the authorities in their plan to kill Jesus (11:47–53). In the Gospel
>
>
> of John, Jesus’ death is consistently portrayed as his ‘glorification’ through
> which he accomplishes his return to the Father."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list