If I may make a few comments.
1. I agree with Dr.Conrad and others, but I also am in agreement with MARKOS on his rule of medio-passivity. But one should keep in mind that the rule cannot be applied indiscriminately, there is a place for it.
2. Although there has been much written lately concerning the middle voice and reflexive use, I would not think that the normal sense of the middle/passive form is reflexive. If anything, I would suggest that an intensifier would be more appropriate: I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, we ourselves, you yourselves, they themselves, etc.
This is not to say that there are not other senses to be understood, depending upon the specific word, such as the middle of NIPTW being understood as reflexive or the active of APTOMAI being understood as lexically different, etc.
3. If I may, I would like to present how I would read this text and how I understand it, this is not a grammatical analysis.
I will begin with the hINA clause, after Hina. DOXASQHi “encodes” third person singular aorist middle subjunctive (in the passive form). That is how I see it, it “encodes” nothing more. This followed by the subject, hO VIOS TOU QEOU, then by a prepositional phrase, DI’ AUTHS, which marks for “passivity” and identifies the agent of passivity specifically.
It might be easier to understand my thinking by using some simple English examples. First an English sentence demonstrating the active voice: “Peter it Roger.” Now I will transform this into a “middle voice”. I do this by defining, for my purposes here, a verb in the “middle voice” as one that is prefixed by some type of intensifier, in this case it is “himself”, so we have “Peter himself-hit Roger. Now to turn this into a passive I turn Roger into an agent, so we have: “Peter himself-hit by Roger”.
Normally I would construct the English to be something like “Peter is being hit by Roger.” If we think of the verb as the complex “is-being-hit” then we have the first component “is”, marking the tense, the second component, “being” marking passivity, and the third component, “hit” identifying the lexical meaning.
In other words, in modern English we mark the verb for passivity. In classical and koine Greek passivity is marked by an appropriate prepositional phrase identifying the agent of passivity.
4. This brings us to another issue. What if we have a construction such as “Peter himself-hit.” In general we can view the verb as either middle or as passive with an implied agent. This is where the “Carl Conrad Rule of Medio-Passivity” come into play.
Some time ago (a year, perhaps longer) some one wrote on this list that in a scriptural verse (I forget which verse) he understood the Greek verb to have a “middle force”, whereas he saw the same verse in the KJV translation as being passive (with an implied agent). Some one else chimed in saying that was another case of the KJV getting it wrong. Those are words that I want to verify myself and not take at face value. So I looked at the verse in question and chuckled to myself. What they saw in the English as a passive (with an implied agent) I saw as intransitive. Therefore, I thought the AV got it exactly right, even translating the ambiguity of the Greek (middle or passive with implied agent) to an English gloss with ambiguity (intransitive or passive with implied agent).
If one comes to a reading with middle in mind, then you will read it as middle or if you come with passive in mind you will tend to read it accordingly.
5. Now let me drop a wrench into what I have constructed. Some verbs regularly use both a middle form and a passive form. We can think that they are just duplicates of one another in some form of transition stage. Or we can think that the passive form is “encoding” for passivity and the middle form is “encoding” for a middle force. This is what I think is happening.
So with this exception, I tend to think of a passive form as middle rather than passive with an implied agent.
John Sanders
Suzhou, China
>
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 that was precisely my qualification of the rule of FWSFOROS, that you cannot assume that the semantic force of a middle-passive form is middle any time it isn’t accompanied by an adverbial indicator of agent or instrument. You have to take into consideration the nature of the verb, particularly whether it’s fundamentally transitive or not.
Yes, I think that “direct reflexive” usage is restricted to certain verbs like NIPTOMAI, KEIROMAI and the like.
Why not “got hit”? I think that “get” as an auxiliary has long been used with participles with an adaptability comparable to that of the Greek middle-passive verb-forms.
Why not “gets hit”?
Always? I really think that a fundamentally transitive verb used in a middle-passive form doesn’t require a prepositional phrase indicating an agent or instrument. I think in such a case the passive sense is ordinarily recognizable.
or “Peter gets hit.”
There certainly ARE middle verbs with passive forms that are really passive, but I don’t think there are very many of them.
Ultimately I think that “knowing” Greek, i.e. reading and/or listening to it and understanding it in its own flow, is not a matter of applying rules for what’s middle and what’s passive; much more it’s a matter of knowing the verbs and their idiosyncrasies. Is APEKRIQH passive? No. Is EBLHQH passive? Almost certainly. And so forth. I still think that this snippet from Alice through the Lookng Glass gets it about right:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master– that’s all.’
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them– particularly verbs, they’re the proudest–adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs–however, I can manage the whole l ot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
But that was precisely my qualification of the rule of FWSFOROS, that you cannot assume that the semantic force of a middle-passive form is middle any time it isn’t accompanied by an adverbial indicator of agent or instrument. You have to take into consideration the nature of the verb, particularly whether it’s fundamentally transitive or not.
Yes, I think that “direct reflexive” usage is restricted to certain verbs like NIPTOMAI, KEIROMAI and the like.
Why not “got hit”? I think that “get” as an auxiliary has long been used with participles with an adaptability comparable to that of the Greek middle-passive verb-forms.
Why not “gets hit”?
Always? I really think that a fundamentally transitive verb used in a middle-passive form doesn’t require a prepositional phrase indicating an agent or instrument. I think in such a case the passive sense is ordinarily recognizable.
or “Peter gets hit.”
There certainly ARE middle verbs with passive forms that are really passive, but I don’t think there are very many of them.
Ultimately I think that “knowing” Greek, i.e. reading and/or listening to it and understanding it in its own flow, is not a matter of applying rules for what’s middle and what’s passive; much more it’s a matter of knowing the verbs and their idiosyncrasies. Is APEKRIQH passive? No. Is EBLHQH passive? Almost certainly. And so forth. I still think that this snippet from Alice through the Lookng Glass gets it about right:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master– that’s all.’
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them– particularly verbs, they’re the proudest–adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs–however, I can manage the whole l ot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Hi Tim, Would you be thinking of his contribution “Deponency and Greek Lexicography” in _Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography_ (Eerdmans, 2004)? Ken
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D. St. Francis Xavier University Greek vocabulary software: http://people.stfx.ca/kpenner/flash/
> I’ve been lurking a bit and just noticed this discussion. I can’t > remember where > they are published but Bernard Taylor has written a couple of > articles in whch > he argues that the so-called deponents all have a middle force. He > is mlore > known in LXX circles, but it is interesting that I don’t see much on > the XX when > it is biblical Greek as well. Is there ever much discussion? > > > > ________________________________ > From: Carl Conrad > To: Mark Lightman > Cc: B Greek > Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 1:53:33 PM > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Analysis of middle-passive forms (was “John > 11:4 and the > Middle/Passive of DOXAZW”) > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Mark Lightman wrote: > >> 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. > > All I have sought to do in my work on ancient Greek Voice is to > challenge > some misconceptions (the notion of deponency, the notion that > “passive” > verbs have “active” functions, the notion that -QH- endings indicate > a passive sense unless the verb is irregular (“deponent”). I haven’t > tried > to lay down any new rules and I continue to believe that voice usage > in > ancient Greek is a complex matter. Ultimately it is the verbs oneself > and their idiosyncrasies that one must know rather intimately so as to > listen to them when one encounters them in one’s reading. Grammar > and its rules don’t really have much to do with reading and Greek > well; grammar is useful only for texts that one has already basically > understood, to clarify HOW they mean what they mean. > >> 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. 🙂 > > And here I would contend, as I think George would also, that I > misunderstood > you because you didn’t really say what you meant to say. Jesus spoke > in > riddles — AINIGMATA, PARABOLAI — but that doesn’t mean we should > do so. > > > Carl W. Conrad > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired) > > > > — >
I’ve been lurking a bit and just noticed this discussion. I can’t remember where they are published but Bernard Taylor has written a couple of articles in whch he argues that the so-called deponents all have a middle force. He is mlore known in LXX circles, but it is interesting that I don’t see much on the XX when it is biblical Greek as well. Is there ever much discussion?
Hi Tim, Would you be thinking of his contribution “Deponency and Greek Lexicography” in _Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography_ (Eerdmans, 2004)? Ken
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D. St. Francis Xavier University Greek vocabulary software: http://people.stfx.ca/kpenner/flash/
> I’ve been lurking a bit and just noticed this discussion. I can’t > remember where > they are published but Bernard Taylor has written a couple of > articles in whch > he argues that the so-called deponents all have a middle force. He > is mlore > known in LXX circles, but it is interesting that I don’t see much on > the XX when > it is biblical Greek as well. Is there ever much discussion? > > > > ________________________________ > From: Carl Conrad > To: Mark Lightman > Cc: B Greek > Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 1:53:33 PM > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Analysis of middle-passive forms (was “John > 11:4 and the > Middle/Passive of DOXAZW”) > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Mark Lightman wrote: > >> 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. > > All I have sought to do in my work on ancient Greek Voice is to > challenge > some misconceptions (the notion of deponency, the notion that > “passive” > verbs have “active” functions, the notion that -QH- endings indicate > a passive sense unless the verb is irregular (“deponent”). I haven’t > tried > to lay down any new rules and I continue to believe that voice usage > in > ancient Greek is a complex matter. Ultimately it is the verbs oneself > and their idiosyncrasies that one must know rather intimately so as to > listen to them when one encounters them in one’s reading. Grammar > and its rules don’t really have much to do with reading and Greek > well; grammar is useful only for texts that one has already basically > understood, to clarify HOW they mean what they mean. > >> 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. 🙂 > > And here I would contend, as I think George would also, that I > misunderstood > you because you didn’t really say what you meant to say. Jesus spoke > in > riddles — AINIGMATA, PARABOLAI — but that doesn’t mean we should > do so. > > > Carl W. Conrad > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired) > > > > — >
I’ve been lurking a bit and just noticed this discussion. I can’t remember where they are published but Bernard Taylor has written a couple of articles in whch he argues that the so-called deponents all have a middle force. He is mlore known in LXX circles, but it is interesting that I don’t see much on the XX when it is biblical Greek as well. Is there ever much discussion?