I'm wondering if the degree of specificity of the accusative affects the way the accusative is used or classified here. Are there other examples in the NT (or other literature) of either an accusative like this (adverbial, respect or cognate) with a very specific reference τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου "John's baptism" as opposed to καῦμα μέγα "a great fire", which is more qualitative than specific. Also τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὰς χεῖρας does not use a possessive. That may indicate that specifying a possessive was redundant in that case. πορφύραν καὶ βύσσον are vague nouns (something like what we have as uncountable nouns in English), as is ἐνδεδυμένος τρίχας καμήλου in Mark 1:6 (not a reference to a "garment of camel fur"). Contexts suggest that what was being worn was cut (or woven) to size. The options to resolve that seem to be that English idiom requires a specific reference, but Greek does not, that Greek allows for specification of something vague in certain circumstances, or that the middle makes a vague (non-specific accusative) more specific - hence this question.Carlton Winbery 4:44 PM Sep 11 2001 wrote:Carl Conrad 01:40 AM Sep 11 2001 wrote:Ken, in "classical" English grammar (what I was taught in the fifth grade, back around 1946--don't know if it's still taught that way or at all ... ), this was called a "received object of a passive verb." The example by which I was taught was: "I was given a book." In this situation the indirect object of "X gave me a book" has become the subject of a passive verb, butKen Litwak [url=http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2001-09/7177.html]9:46 PM Sept10 2001[/url] wrote:In Luke 7:29b, we read βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. By its parallel with 7:30, it should probably be understood as "having been baptized by John's baptism." This, however, requires using an accusative to express means. Surely that's to invent yet another grammatical category to use, rather than trying to make sense of it with accepted categories. How should this accusative be understood. Please don't tell me categories as such are bad, since when I asked, no one had a better practicable suggestion. Thanks.
the direct object still has to be expressed in an accusative (i.e. "objective") case form. That's exactly what τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου is here.
However, in the course of my ruminations on Greek voice, I've personally come to feel that it would be better to characterize the form βαπτισθέντες as an aorist MIDDLE participle with the sense "having gotten themselves baptized" and understand τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου as a "cognate accusative" of βαπτίζω (like the object in "see the sights" or the like.I have read Carl's studies on the middle/passive voices and agree with most of what he says. Some of it I seek to express by using the older terminology of true passive and not true passive. I have, because of Carl, dropped the word, deponent, from my vocabulary.Alex Hopkins 8:33 Sep 11 2001 wrote:and brought attention to the accusative.Ken Litwak 9:46 PM Sept10 2001 wrote:In Luke 7:29b, we read βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου
I don't think I'm adding anything at variance with the answer Carl has already given, but note only that some of the grammar books like using the word 'retained' in describing this sort of accusative; see e.g. BDF 159 (1) 'The accusative of the thing is retained with the passive of [certain] verbs', or Wallace's GGBB p197 which speaks of the 'accusative of retained object'. See also Zerwick's excellent Biblical Greek illustrated by Examples, #72 (52): 'Verbs which in the active can govern a double accusative retain in the passive, in Greek, 'the accusative of the thing'.' Sometimes I think the terminology is more tangled than the meaning; e.g., re John 11:44 (ἐξῆλθεν ὁ τεθνηκώς , δεδεμένος τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὰς χεῖρας κειρίαις), the Zerwick/Grosvenor Analysis (1981 edition) takes τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὰς χεῖρας κειρίαις as accusatives of respect, while BDF 159, note 3, classify under 'The accusative with the passive' (i.e. what I refer to as retained accusative); the sense is perfectly clear - even if the grammatical nomenclature isn't.
In the case of this passage though, I have generally dealt with it by noting the tendency of the accusative to be used adverbally. When the accusative is used adverbally, it expresses measure in time or space, reference or respect, or manner. I think this one expresses manner and that the passive or middle form of the verb does not matter that much. A simple eg in Luke with an active verb is Luke 9:14, Κατακλίνατε αὐτοὺς κλισίας . . . "Seat them in groups . . ."
With the a passive form, Luke 16:19 ἐνεδιδύσκετο πορφύραν καὶ βύσσον. "He was clothed (If middle - clothed himself) with purple and fine linen. One that seems to me to be passive, Rev. 16:9 ἐκαυματίσθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καῦμα μέγα "The men were burned with a great fire." So I think I would explain Luke 9:29 [(sic.) 9:27 SH] as an accusative used adverbally showing manner.
Here is a reference to Smyth for the cognate accusative. There is an example of a specific accusative given in Smyth viz. “τὴν ἐν Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχία_ν ναυμαχήσαντες” victorious in the sea-fight at Salamis” D. 59.97.