[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