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.
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.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III