[B-Greek] Analysis of middle-passive forms (was "John 11:4 and the Middle/Passive of DOXAZW")
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Feb 19 13:39:13 EST 2011
On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:
> <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.
Howzabout hOI GRAMMATIKOI LUONTAI ("Grammarians come undone."
Or there's always T. S. Eliot:
" ... Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,
Will not stay still."
>
> ________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ---
> 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
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list