ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by RandallButh »

There is a tricky question at the confluence of semantics, morpho-syntax, and phonology.

Our Greek texts list many occurrences of ἔγειρε [pronounced έyirε, to use a non-tech greek-english notation] and typically treated as meaning 'get up!'. The typical parsing in a Greek program or lexical resource is "present [sic] active [sic] imperative".

However, in Greek ἐγείρασθαι/ἐγερθῆναι would normally mean 'to get up, arise קום' and it occurs in singulative/aorist/perfective contexts, and is in a non-active voice. The active voice ἐγείρειν/ἐγεῖραι is a transitive 'to raise something up' [להקים] and includes an object, whether explicit or implied.
See for example Matt 10.8 νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε "as for the dead be raising them up [active, transitive!], as for the lepers, be cleansing them."

So what do we make of the following texts? Luke 7.14 is clearly good and correct Greek. ἐγέρθητι.
But John 5.8 ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει is funny reading:
"be raising [something] up and take your mat and start walking around [continuative/imperfective aspect, appropriately]!
The first imperative appears to be in an unexpected voice (active, transitive) and in a less-expected aspect, continuative/imperfective instead of the more expected aorist/perfective.

The phenomenon is common in the NT

Μαθθαῖον 9·5 τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν· ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν· ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει;

Μάρκον 2·9 τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν τῷ παραλυτικῷ· ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν· ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει;

Μάρκον 2·11 σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου.

Μάρκον 3·3 καὶ λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ τὴν ξηρὰν χεῖρα ἔχοντι· ἔγειρε εἰς τὸ μέσον.

Μάρκον 5·41 καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου λέγει αὐτῇ· ταλιθα κουμ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον· τὸ κοράσιον, σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε.

Μάρκον 10·49 καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· φωνήσατε αὐτόν. καὶ φωνοῦσιν τὸν τυφλὸν λέγοντες αὐτῷ· θάρσει, ἔγειρε, φωνεῖ σε.

Λουκᾶν 5·23 τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν· ἀφέωνταί σοι αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου, ἢ εἰπεῖν· ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει; 24 ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας _ εἶπεν τῷ παραλελυμένῳ· σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε καὶ ἄρας τὸ κλινίδιόν σου πορεύου εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου

Λουκᾶν 6·8 αὐτὸς δὲ ᾔδει τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς αὐτῶν, εἶπεν δὲ τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ ξηρὰν ἔχοντι τὴν χεῖρα· ἔγειρε καὶ στῆθι εἰς τὸ μέσον· καὶ ἀναστὰς ἔστη.

Λουκᾶν 7·14 καὶ προσελθὼν ἥψατο τῆς σοροῦ, οἱ δὲ βαστάζοντες ἔστησαν, καὶ εἶπεν· νεανίσκε, σοὶ λέγω, ἐγέρθητι.

Λουκᾶν 8·54 αὐτὸς δὲ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς ἐφώνησεν λέγων· ἡ παῖς, ἔγειρε.

Ἰωάννην 5·8 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει.

Πράξεις 3·6 εἶπεν δὲ Πέτρος· ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον οὐχ ὑπάρχει μοι, ὃ δὲ ἔχω τοῦτό σοι δίδωμι· ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου [ἔγειρε καὶ] περιπάτει.

Ἐφεσίους 5·14 πᾶν γὰρ τὸ φανερούμενον φῶς ἐστιν. διὸ λέγει·
ἔγειρε, ὁ καθεύδων,
καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,
καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός.

Ἀποκάλυψις 11·1 Καὶ ἐδόθη μοι κάλαμος ὅμοιος ῥάβδῳ, λέγων· ἔγειρε καὶ μέτρησον τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ.


All of the above ΕΓΕΙΡΕ are exact homophones with a correct form that actually means "get up" [intransitive].
The meaning and intent is ΕΓΕΙΡΑΙ, ἔγειραι pronounced correctly in the first century all over the Mediterranean as [ἐyirε {again using Greek-English transcription for a non-tech audience)].

I would contend that when our NT manuscripts have ἔγειρε, the audience, speakers, and writers were thinking and understanding what we would normalize in writing as ἔγειραι, the aorist middle [intransitive] imperative.
Look at the Byz text:

Ματθαῖον 9·5 τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν, Ἀφέωνταί σοι αἱ ἁμαρτίαι· ἢ εἰπεῖν, Ἔγειραι καὶ περιπάτει;

Μάρκον 2·9 τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν τῷ παραλυτικῷ, Ἀφέωνταί σοι αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν, Ἔγειραι, καὶ ἆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον, καὶ περιπάτει;

Μάρκον 2·11 Σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειραι, καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν σου, καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου.

Μάρκον 3·3 καὶ λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ ἐξηραμμένην ἔχοντι τὴν χεῖρα, Ἔγειραι εἰς τὸ μέσον.

Μάρκον 5·41 καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου, λέγει αὐτῇ, Ταλιθά, κοῦμι· ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον, Τὸ κοράσιον, σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειραι.

Μάρκον 10·49 καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτὸν φωνηθῆναι· καὶ φωνοῦσι τὸν τυφλόν, λέγοντες αὐτῷ, Θάρσει· ἔγειραι, φωνεῖ σε.

Λουκᾶν 5·23 τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν, Ἀφέωνταί σοι αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου, ἢ εἰπεῖν, Ἔγειραι καὶ περιπάτει; 24 ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας (εἶπε τῷ παραλελυμένῳ), Σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειραι, καὶ ἄρας τὸ κλινίδιόν σου, πορεύου εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου.

Λουκᾶν 6·8 αὐτὸς δὲ ᾔδει τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς αὐτῶν, καὶ εἶπε τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ ξηρὰν ἔχοντι τὴν χεῖρα, Ἔγειραι, καὶ στῆθι εἰς τὸ μέσον. ὁ δὲ ἀναστὰς ἔστη.

Λουκᾶν 7·14 καὶ προσελθὼν ἥψατο τῆς σοροῦ· οἱ δὲ βαστάζοντες ἔστησαν. καὶ εἶπε, Νεανίσκε, σοὶ λέγω, ἐγέρθητι.

Λουκᾶν 8·54 αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκβαλὼν ἔξω πάντας, καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς, ἐφώνησε λέγων, Ἡ παῖς ἐγείρου.

Ἰωάννην 5·8 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἔγειραι, ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν σου, καὶ περιπάτει.

Πράξεις 3·6 εἶπε δὲ Πέτρος, Ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον οὐχ ὑπάρχει μοι· ὃ δὲ ἔχω, τοῦτό σοι δίδωμι. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου, ἔγειραι καὶ περιπάτει.

Ἐφεσίους 5·14 διὸ λέγει, Ἔγειραι ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός.

Ἀποκάλυψις 11·1 Καὶ ἐδόθη μοι κάλαμος ὅμοιος ῥάβδῳ, καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος εἱστήκει, λέγων, Ἔγειραι, καὶ μέτρησον τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ.

Only Luke 8.54 has something different Ἡ παῖς ἐγείρου, which is a continuative MIDDLE imperative meaning "be getting up [to continue doing what you would do]".

Phonology, Semantics, Morphology, yea these three, and the greatest of them, . . . are all three.



[[PS: I suspect that there would be discussion of this in 17-19th century commentaries, I haven't checked. In the meantime pls do a courtesy of referencing this discussion if citing the phenomenon.]]
Alan Bunning
Posts: 299
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by Alan Bunning »

A complicated topic indeed. I wrote a paper on this problem in general, for there are a lot more words where this happens than just ἔγειρε. I counted 3959 places where this type of phenomenon occurs with various words in the New Testament. Rather than provide my take on it here, your post looks like a good opportunity to plug my upcoming presentation at the SBL conference in November:

S22-109
Biblical Lexicography
11/22/2021
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Bowie A (Second Floor) - Grand Hyatt

Orthographical Priority for Interpreting Homophones in New Testament Manuscripts

Words appearing in New Testament manuscripts were spelled phonetically by scribes, often resulting in a number of different spellings for the same word. This is normally not a problem when there is only one plausible choice regarding its meaning in context. But when one word is a homophone of another word, it raises a number of different problems including whether a word should be considered a textual variant or not. This is especially problematic with several different verb conjugations which sounded the same during the Koine period. Such words are often ambiguous and cannot be resolved by the context alone. And if these words are interpreted according to the classical spelling conventions, many sentences would not make any sense. The orthographical priority approach introduces a systematic method for classifying such words which can be consistently applied to New Testament manuscripts.

If you would be willing to look over a draft of the paper before then, I could send it to you privately.
S Walch
Posts: 274
Joined: June 13th, 2011, 4:27 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by S Walch »

Interestingly, in Lectionary 299 (the upper text of Codex Zachynthius), which is mainly Byzantine (at least in Mark, the only portion I've checked), in all five of the Markan passages (2:9, 11; 3:3; 5:41; 10:49) the copyist has written ἔγειρε as opposed to ἔγειραι. There is only one other place (in Mark) where the copyist has made the same ε/αι error - 10:49 with φωνήσατε - just before the same error in ἔγειρε. One wonders whether these may've already been present in the exemplar used (would have to check Matt, Luke, and John first though to determine this).
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by RandallButh »

Thanks.
A history of mss will be needed. The ἔγειραι that I listed is from the Accordance text of Stephanus' 1550.
MAubrey
Posts: 1090
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by MAubrey »

It doesn't help that there are numerous labile alternations that exist with Greek verbs, too.

Examples:
βλαστάνω ‘cause to grow’ vs. βλαστάνω ‘bud, sprout’ (anticausative).
ἀνατέλλω ‘cause [x] to rise’ vs. ἀνατέλλω ‘[x] rises’
ἀπορίπτω ‘drive [x] away’ vs. ἀπορίπτω ‘[x] jumps off’
ἐνισχύω ‘strengthen [x]’ vs. ἐνισχύω ‘[x] grows strong’

It's also common in languages with middle systems, including Greek (as you know already!) to have voice splits by aspect, where one voice is preferred by one aspect and the other voice in another aspect.

Still, you make a super compelling case. I'm 90% sold.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by RandallButh »

Thanks, Mike.

I'll take 90%.

For that matter, I'm only 90%. As mentioned, this needs manuscript follow-up. The phenomenon needs to be tracked so that we can know more precisely what speakers and hearers thought when they heard [IPA εjirε] in an intransitive/middle context. It is difficult to rule out 100% that a dialectical intransitive-middle did not develop within the active or continuative-active morphological system for this particular verb.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I'd need to see what the manuscripts say about the spelling. Though some scribes confound ε and αι, most don't.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by RandallButh »

Stephen Carlson wrote: September 26th, 2021, 8:03 pm I'd need to see what the manuscripts say about the spelling. Though some scribes confound ε and αι, most don't.
Stephen, we would need to look in two directions.
One is the mss tradition of the NT.
Equally important, actually more so, would be clear examples of intransitive active εγείρειν.
They do not clearly exist in the NT and then only for the homonym ἔγειρε÷ἔγειραι. Note that in the NT the follow up descriptions typically use non-active forms of ἐγερθῆναι or else an intransitive synonym ἀναστῆναι:

Mt 9:7 ἐγερθείς aorist PASSIVE-intransitive
Mk 2.12 ἠγέρθη
Mk 5.39 ἀνέστη the non-transitive theta-passive endings as opposed to full active ἀνἐστησεν
Mk 10.50 ἀναπηδήσας intransitive 'jump up'
Lk 5.25 ἀναστὰς intransitive like Mk 5.39
Lk 8.55 ἀνέστη
Acts 3.7 ἤγειρεν αὐτόν--when the active of ἐγείρειν is used it implies/requires a transitive object.

So. where in literature/docs outside the NT do we find an intransitive ACTIVE-forms of ἐγείρειν? (I am currently without books, even simple tools like Moulton Milligen or BADG)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

RandallButh wrote: September 27th, 2021, 1:30 am So. where in literature/docs outside the NT do we find an intransitive ACTIVE-forms of ἐγείρειν? (I am currently without books, even simple tools like Moulton Milligen or BADG)
Here's what BDAG says about this usage:
in a command to evoke movement from a fixed position ἔγειρε, ἐγείρου get up!, come! impv.
ⓐ act. intr. only in impv. (Eur., Iph. A. 624; Aristoph., Ran. 340; Aesop-mss. [Ursing 80]) Mt 9:5f; Mk 2:9 (v.l. ἐγείρου), 11; 3:3; 5:41; 10:49; Lk 5:23f; 6:8; 8:54 (v.l. ἐγείρου); J 5:8; Ac 3:6 ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει; Rv 11:1; AcPl Ha 7, 28. Awakening of the ‘dead’ (with καθεύδειν and ἐγείρειν associated in figurative use, as in Plut., Mor. 462) in Mk 5:41; Lk 8:54 (v.l. ἐγείρου); Eph 5:14 (MDibelius, Hdb. ad loc., but without Gnostic motif acc. to KKuhn, NTS 7, ’60/61, 341–46; cp. PsSol 16:1–4) parallels the aspect of motion in passages cited in 1, 3–10, and others here in a above.
ⓑ pass. intr. ἐγείρου get up! Mk 2:9 v.l.; Lk 8:54 v.l.; ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν get up! let us be going Mt 26:46; Mk 14:42; J 14:31.
One would have to follow up on the parallels in Euripides, Aristophanes, and manuscripts of Aesop.

LSJ has this:
III. intr. in Act., arouse oneself, Aesop.16b.
The Aesop text reads in the relevant place:
γυνὴ χήρα φιλεργὸς θεραπαινίδας ἔχουσα ταύτας εἰώθει νυκτὸς ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα ἐγείρειν πρὸς ἀλεκτοροφωνίαν.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Jean Putmans
Posts: 152
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: ἔγειρε semantics and orthography--how would you parse this?

Post by Jean Putmans »

Some pre-christian examples :

Schyzer-Debrunner 1950 (1966) Vol II, p. 228:

4. Aktiver Imperativ im medialen System: παΰε μάχης Hes. sc.449,
bei Aristophanes οι δ' οΐδα τoν νουν παΰε παύε του λόγου ran. 580, παύε παυ'
όρχούμενος pax 326, παΰε τοίνυν eccl. 160, ώ παΰε παΰε ran. 269, in Prosa
παΰε (Antwort auf ΐθι, δείκνυε) Plat. Phaedr. 228e (doch auch έπαυσε πόνων
Eur. Heb 1320), έγειρε ,expergiscere' Eur. IA 624,4 ανακάλυπτε ,enthülle
dich' Eur. Or. 294. Dazu wohl auch άγε lat. age (zu agitur), φέρε (zu φέρομαι),
beide eigentlich ,tummle dich'. Wackernagel , Synt. 1, 122 vergleicht zu
παΰε lat. -to statt -tor; es sei weiter an die aktive 2. Plur. im altirischen Deponens
erinnert (1, 671 o.), auch an die (scheinbar nur) aktiven Infinitive
in passiver Funktion (άξιος θαυμάσαι; vgl. u. S. 364 und o. 1, 805 f.).

Also have a look at Kühner-Gerth Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache Zweiter Teil 1904 (Repr. 2015, Page 95)
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Post Reply

Return to “Other”