Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm
Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
Robertson (pg 855, d, lines 6-8) mentions a "ban" on μὴ ποίησον from the beginning of our knowledge of the Greek language. The footnote references Moulton's Prolegomena which I don't have. What is he talking about?
Scott Lawson
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm
Re: Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
ὁ βασιλευς: Τι ονομα σοι;
ὁ ανηρ: ῶ κυριε, ονομα μοι Λερι ὁ Κηβελγαι
ὁ βασιλευς: Αποκτεινετε ὁυτος …ὁυτος …αγραμματoς!
ὁ στρατιωτης: Ναι ῶ κυριε! Ευθυς ῶ κυριε!
ὁ βασιλευς: μη λεγετωσαν τους λογους "μη ποιησον" εις τον παντα αιωνος!
Thus the ban came about.
ὁ ανηρ: ῶ κυριε, ονομα μοι Λερι ὁ Κηβελγαι
ὁ βασιλευς: Αποκτεινετε ὁυτος …ὁυτος …αγραμματoς!
ὁ στρατιωτης: Ναι ῶ κυριε! Ευθυς ῶ κυριε!
ὁ βασιλευς: μη λεγετωσαν τους λογους "μη ποιησον" εις τον παντα αιωνος!
Thus the ban came about.
Scott Lawson
Re: Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
Here's Moulton's words directly:
The book is in public domain and available on archive.org: http://archive.org/details/grammarofnewtest01mouluoftMoulton, [i]A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Prolegomena[/i], 173–174 wrote:The distinction between present and aorist imperative has been drawn already, to some extent, in the discussion of prohibitions; for though the subjunctive has to be used in the aorist, it is difficult to question that for this purpose the two moods hardly differ—the reason for the ban on μὴ ποίησον lies buried in the prehistoric stage of the language. And whatever the distinction may be, we must apply the same essential principles to commands and prohibitions, which were felt by the Greeks to be logically identical categories: see Miller op. cit. 416. The only difference will be that the meaning of μὴ ποιήσῃς (above, pp. 122 ff.) comes from the future sense inherent in the subjunctive, while in estimating the force of ποίησον we have nothing but the aorist idea to consider. This, as we have often repeated, lies in the “point action” involved. In the imperative therefore the conciseness of the aorist makes it a decidedly more sharp and urgent form than the present. The latter may of course show any of the characteristics of linear action. There is the iterative, as in Lk 11:3, the conative, p 174 as in Mk 9:39 (“do not try to stop him, as you are doing”), Phil 2:12 (“set to working out”); and of course the simple durative passim. Writers differ in their preferences between the tenses. Thus 1 Pet shows a marked liking for the aorist, which he has 22 times in commands (2nd pers.), against 6 presents; on the other hand Paul has 9 presents to 1 aorist (apart from LXX citations) in Gal, and 20 to 2 in Phil. In Mt 5–7 the presents (still 2nd pers.) are 19 to 24, and in corresponding parts of Lk 21 to 16. In seven passages only do the two evangelists use different tenses, and in all of them the accompanying variation of phraseology accounts for the difference in a way which shows how delicately the distinction of tenses was observed. Mt 5:42=Lk 6:30, and Mt 6:11=Lk 11:3, we have dealt with. Mt 5:12 has continuous presents, following ὅταν c. aor. subj.: in Lk 6:23 a little more stress on the ingressive element in these aorists makes the addition ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ suitable, and this carries with it the aor. imper. In Lk 12:58 δός is natural with ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ: Mt 5:25 has ἴσθι εὐνοῶν, which is curious in view of ταχύ. But since εἰμί has no aorist, it is not surprising that its imperative is sometimes quasi-ingressive: cf Mk 5:34, Lk 19:17, and the phrase γνωστὸν ἔστω (Ac ter). The punctiliar στρέψον, turn, in Mt 5:39 answers well to the linear πάρεχε, hold out, offer, in Lk 6:29. The vivid phrase ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν of Lk 13:24 may well preserve more of the original than the constative εἰσέλθατε of Mt 7:13. In all these cases some would recognise the effects of varying translation from an Aramaic original, itself perhaps not wholly fixed in detail; but we see no trace of indifference to the force of the tenses. The remaining example is in a quotation from Ps 6:9, in which Mt 7:23 preserves the LXX except in the verb ἀποχωρεῖτε, while Lk 13:27 modifies the address to ἐργάται ἀδικΐας: here it is enough to say that the perfective ἀποχωρεῖτε may have quasi-ingressive sense even in the present.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
Re: Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
I still don't get it. Did the man say something of that "ungrammatical" sort previously? Anyway there are instances in the new testament; would the king have killed those authors too?Scott Lawson wrote:ὁ βασιλευς: Τι ονομα σοι;
ὁ ανηρ: ῶ κυριε, ονομα μοι Λερι ὁ Κηβελγαι
ὁ βασιλευς: Αποκτεινετε ὁυτος …ὁυτος …αγραμματoς!
ὁ στρατιωτης: Ναι ῶ κυριε! Ευθυς ῶ κυριε!
ὁ βασιλευς: μη λεγετωσαν τους λογους "μη ποιησον" εις τον παντα αιωνος!
Thus the ban came about.

[Matt 6] [3] σου δε ποιουντος ελεημοσυνην μη γνωτω η αριστερα σου τι ποιει η δεξια σου
[Matt 24] [17] ο επι του δωματος μη καταβαινετω αραι τα εκ της οικιας αυτου [18] και ο εν τω αγρω μη επιστρεψατω οπισω αραι τα ιματια αυτου
[Mark 13] [15] ο δε επι του δωματος μη καταβατω εις την οικιαν μηδε εισελθετω αραι τι εκ της οικιας αυτου [16] και ο εις τον αγρον ων μη επιστρεψατω εις τα οπισω αραι το ιματιον αυτου
[Luke 17] [31] εν εκεινη τη ημερα ος εσται επι του δωματος και τα σκευη αυτου εν τη οικια μη καταβατω αραι αυτα και ο εν τω αγρω ομοιως μη επιστρεψατω εις τα οπισω
It is interesting also that though they did not reproduce the saying of Jesus exactly, all of them have aorist imperatives in the negative, which means there was nothing wrong with it, though certainly it is uncommon.
Thanks, Mike, for the full text!
I also find this "rule" is that the present subjunctive is not used in a negative injunction odd, because I believe it is used (whether negated or not) whenever the present time is in focus, whereas the aorist subjunctive has no connotation of time:Moulton wrote:The distinction between present and aorist imperative has been drawn already, to some extent, in the discussion of prohibitions; for though the subjunctive has to be used in the aorist, it is difficult to question that for this purpose the two moods hardly differ—the reason for the ban on μὴ ποίησον lies buried in the prehistoric stage of the language.
[Heb 3] [15] εν τω λεγεσθαι σημερον εαν της φωνης αυτου ακουσητε μη σκληρυνητε τας καρδιας υμων ως εν τω παραπικρασμω
[1 John 2] [15] μη αγαπατε τον κοσμον μηδε τα εν τω κοσμω εαν τις αγαπα τον κοσμον ουκ εστιν η αγαπη του πατρος εν αυτω
What do you think, Mike?
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm
Re: Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
Good morning David! Yeaahh! He was Larry the Cable Guy! You don't watch enough American TV. 

Scott Lawson
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm
Re: Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
Robertson notes, "Prohibitions in the 2nd and 3rd person aorist subjunctive held their place and were not supplanted by the imperative." (Robertson 851, δ)David Lim wrote:all of them have aorist imperatives in the negative, which means there was nothing wrong with it, though certainly it is uncommon.
Scott Lawson
Re: Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
In fact I don't watch TV at all.Scott Lawson wrote:Good morning David! Yeaahh! He was Larry the Cable Guy! You don't watch enough American TV.

I think you misread my statement; those are negative injunctions using the aorist imperatives, not aorist subjunctives.Scott Lawson wrote:Robertson notes, "Prohibitions in the 2nd and 3rd person aorist subjunctive held their place and were not supplanted by the imperative." (Robertson 851, δ)David Lim wrote:all of them have aorist imperatives in the negative, which means there was nothing wrong with it, though certainly it is uncommon.
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm
Re: Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
David, you are more righteous than I am.David Lim wrote:In fact I don't watch TV at all.
I shouldn't say anything but I will. I understood you to be looking for examples of prohibitions in the aorist imperative, which you found and from which you rightly concluded that there was nothing wrong with using them. This fact was know to me from my reading of Robertson. You also pointed out that this use was uncommon so I pointed out Robertson's observation that historically the imperative is a late development which began encroaching on the use of the subjunctive and other forms used as imperatives. The development of the imperative did not supplant the first/original use of the subjunctive in prohibitions which held its place as the imperative advanced in use. This I pointed out just in case you were interested in some of the history of its development. You were broadening the discussion to the use of prohibitions in aorist imperatives when I was trying to focus on this singular ban on the expression μὴ ποίησον. Unfortunately, I didn't find Mouton's comments any more enlightening than Robertson's. Neither explain why the ban exists, just that it does. I thought that perhaps the reason for it was either so obvious to the masters of Greek that it needed no explaining or that there was some specific reason worked out for the ban. So far, it seems, neither presumption has proved true. Likely, you will now tell me how I continue to misunderstand your comments.
Scott Lawson
Re: Ban on μὴ ποίησον?
I see what you meant. Okay back to "μη ποιησον", does anyone know the history behind the "ban"?Scott Lawson wrote:I shouldn't say anything but I will. I understood you to be looking for examples of prohibitions in the aorist imperative, which you found and from which you rightly concluded that there was nothing wrong with using them. This fact was know to me from my reading of Robertson. You also pointed out that this use was uncommon so I pointed out Robertson's observation that historically the imperative is a late development which began encroaching on the use of the subjunctive and other forms used as imperatives. The development of the imperative did not supplant the first/original use of the subjunctive in prohibitions which held its place as the imperative advanced in use. This I pointed out just in case you were interested in some of the history of its development. You were broadening the discussion to the use of prohibitions in aorist imperatives when I was trying to focus on this singular ban on the expression μὴ ποίησον. Unfortunately, I didn't find Mouton's comments any more enlightening than Robertson's. Neither explain why the ban exists, just that it does. I thought that perhaps the reason for it was either so obvious to the masters of Greek that it needed no explaining or that there was some specific reason worked out for the ban. So far, it seems, neither presumption has proved true. Likely, you will now tell me how I continue to misunderstand your comments.
δαυιδ λιμ