Matthew 26:52

12 thoughts on “Matthew 26:52”

1. Richard Smith says:

   Very thorough and informative. Thanks to all who helped with their comments. I think part of my misreading is that English translation definitions may use words with transitive and intransitive senses, and sometimes I miss that a particular Greek form may not have convey both of the transitive and intransitive senses of the English translation. I apply the English possibilites to the Greek. I will be more attuned to that going forward.

    And “transitive” and “intransitive” are helpful classifications for me, as is “deponent” still.

   But I am a very amateur self taught NT Greek reader. I offer that in way of introduction.

   Thanks,

   Richard

   —– Original Message —–
   Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 1:46:31 AM

   In the BDAG entry for ἀποστρέφω APOSTREFW it is said no less than twice: “2d
   aor. pass. in act. sense.” That is not very helpful and it is based on an
   obsolete approach to grammar. Nor is it very helpful to talk in terms of
   transitive and intransitive since these are purely syntactical terms. It is more
   interesting to look at such verbs in terms of semantics and also accept that
   what is morphologically called “passive” is often semantically middle.

   This verb is extremely common in the LXX, but less common in the NT. Of the 9
   occurrences in the NT, 4 are MP (middle-passive), while 5 are active.

   The verb commonly has three primary roles and one secondary. The semantic
   scenario is one of movement from one position to another. The semantic roles are
   A (Agent) and P (Patient) which in the case of a person is often called E
   (Experiencer) and L (Location). For this verb I prefer to talk about the primary
   location as Pos1 (Position 1, i.e. where the movement starts from) and the
   secondary location as Pos2 (where the movement ends or is directed towards.)
   When the A and E roles refer to the same referent, Greek would often use a
   middle.

   Let me illustrate it with

   Mat 26:52 τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀπόστρεψον τὴν μάχαιράν σου εἰς τὸν τόπον
   αὐτῆς
   TOTE LEGEI AUTWI hO IHSOUS, APOSTREYON THN MACAIRAN SOU EIS TON TOPON AUTHS
   Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place.

   Because of the imperative, the Agent is expressed in the verb form (you, the
   addressee, Peter). The Patient is the sword, Pos1 is implicit (in his hand) and
   Pos2 is indicated by an EIS phrase. Such a prepositional phrase is common for a
   secondary (or peripheral) semantic role. The Agent is different from the P and
   therefore an Active form is used.

   The other NT examples are also instructive:

   Mat 5:42 τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς
   TWi AITOUNTI SE DOS, KAI TON QELONTA APO SOUD DANISASQAI MH APOSTRAFHiS
   Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn yourself away from the one who
   wants to borrow from you

   Here the A refers to the same person as the P/E while Pos1 and Pos2 are not
   specified. Do not turn yourself away from a position of not wanting to help to a
   position of wanting to help. That is why the middle form is used, even if it is
   called a “passive”.

   Luk 23:14 εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Προσηνέγκατέ μοι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον ὡς
   ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν
   EIPEN PROS AUTOUS, PROSHNEGKATE MOI TON ANQRWPON TOUTON hWS APOSTREFONTA TON
   LAON
   He said to them: You have brought to me this person as someone who turns away
   the people

   A is Jesus, P/E is the people and Pos1 is a position of obedience, while Pos 2
   is a position of revolt. Since A and P/E are different, an active is used.

   Rom 11:26  Ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ.
   hHXEI EK ZIWN hO RUOMENOS APOSTREYEI ASEBEIAS APO IAKWB
   The deliverer will come from Zion to turn ungodliness away from Jakob

   Here the A is Jesus (implicit), the P is ungodliness and Pos1 is Jacob/Israel.
   As expected an active form is used.

   2 Tim 1:15 ἀπεστράφησάν με πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ
   APESTRAFHSAN ME PANTES hOI EN THi ASIAi
   All (my co-workers) who (are) in Asia have turned themselves away from me.

   Here we have the middle since the A and P/E refer to the same people. Pos1 is
   “me”. Pos2 is implicit.

   2 Tim 4:4 καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέψουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς μύθους
   ἐκτραπήσονται.
   KAI APO MEN THS ALHQEIAS THN AKOHN APOSTREYOUSIN, EPI DE TOUS MUQOUS
   EKTRAPHSONTAI
   And while/on the one hand they will turn the ear from the truth, they will (on
   the other hand) turn themselves to myths.

   A is the people, P is the ear, Pos1 is the truth and Pos 2 is the myths which is
   syntactically connected to the parallel middle verb EKTRAPHSONTAI

   Tit 1:4 μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων
   τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
   MH PROSECONTES IOUDAIKOIS MUQOIS KAI ENTOLAIS ANQRWPWN APOSTREFOMENWN THN
   ALHQEIAN
   not holding on to Jewish myths and commandments of human origin while turning
   themselves away from the truth

   The verb is middle because A and P/E refer to the same people. Pos1 is the
   truth. Pos2 is the myths and commandments. There is a certain flexibility in how
   Pos1 is expressed in the syntax. It may be a simple accusative as here or a
   prepositional phrase with APO as above. It is probably occasioned by whether
   there is already another accusative in the construction or not.

   Heb 12:25 οἱ τὸν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν ἀποστρεφόμενοι
   hOI TON AP’ OURANWN APOSTREFOMENOI
   those who (were) turning themselves away (from the voice) from heaven

   Let me finish with a couple of examples form the LXX. Since this mail is a
   follow-up to Acts 3:26, I want to look at those with hEKASTOS:

   Ruth 1:8 καὶ εἶπεν Νωεμιν ταῖς νύμφαις αὐτῆς Πορεύεσθε δὴ ἀποστράφητε ἑκάστη εἰς
   οἶκον μητρὸς αὐτῆς
   KAI EIPEN NWEMIN TAIS NUMFAIS AUTHS, POREUESQE DH APOSTRAFHTE hEKASTH EIS OIKON
   MHTROS AUTHS
   And Naomi said to here daughters-in-law: You go each one you turn yourself back
   to the house of her mother

   The middle is used since the daughters have their own free will to turn or not.
   (One does, the other does not.) The A is the same referent as the P/E. Pos1 is
   implicit, Pos2 is expressed by an EIS phrase.

   2 Ch 11:4 Τάδε λέγει κύριος Οὐκ ἀναβήσεσθε καὶ οὐ πολεμήσετε πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς
   ὑμῶν· ἀποστρέφετε ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ
   TADE LEGEI KURIOS, OUK ANABHSESQE KAI OU POLEUHSETE PROS TOUS ADELFOUS hUMWN.
   APOSTREFETE hEKASTOS EIS TON OIKON AUTOU

   Then the Lord says: Do not go up and do not make war against your brothers.
   You(plural) must return each one to his own house.

   Here the active is used. This may be a stylistic variation by the translator,
   but I think it is more likely that the active puts focus on God who makes them
   turn rather than on them returning out of their own volition or initiative.
   There is a similar active form in Jer 27:16, although Jeremiah usually has the
   middle form (18:11, 23:14, 25:5, 33:3, 42:15).

   Jon 3:8 καὶ ἀπέστρεψαν ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς
   KAI APESTREYAN hEKASTOS APO THS hODOU AUTOU THS PONHRAS
   and they must turn, each one from his evil way

   Again the active is probably because of an implicit A different form those who
   are to turn. It is a command from the king to the people, similar to the
   previous example.

   Iver Larsen

   —

     Reply

     February 12, 2011 at 12:52 pm
2. Carl Conrad says:

   I was going to respond to this off list, but what I want to write to you is largely what I have written so frequently on list that it’s become boring. My “ad nauseam” notes have a reputation and an “odor” on B-Greek. Bear with me: I’m a 76-year-old retired Greek teacher, away from the campus for ten years now, having taught my last Greek class in January of 2001. But I hope that I’m harmless … and BG regulars will know to delete before they’ve reached the end of this opening paragraph.

   It’s worth noting — and bearing always in mind — that the better English translations don’t endeavor to render the Greek original in the word-order or grammatical structures of the Greek but rather in word-order and grammatical sructures that are appropriate to good English prose. Of course, every English translation from the Greek is an interpretation of the Greek, and unless the Greek original is so concrete and simple that it doesn’t say anything very important, it is almost certainly going to skew and misrepresent the original in some way or other — not intentionally, ordinarily — although the translation is often skewed in part by the translator’s own preconceptions. That’s what the old Italian proverb is intended to convey: “Traduttori traditori” — “Translators are not to be trusted!” I’ve often (too often?) said that one seeking to gain competence in Biblical Greek should aim at understanding what the original Greek is communicating in its own terms, and NOT on ho
   w that Greek will sound or look in an English translation.

   One of the insights into how language works that I’ve gained relatively recently is that grammar — including lexicology, syntactic rules, morphology, etc. –, whether it’s the traditional grammar of “dead scholars” of the decades and centuries past or the theoretical constructions and analyses of the academic linguists of more recent years — is fundamentally analytic. It’s function is to help us explain or give an account to ourselves and each other about HOW the Greek utterance or written statement means what we understand it to mean. I honestly believe that grammatical analysis cannot begin until one has already reached at least a tentative understanding of the Greek text. But I also believe that grammatical analysis will not help one reach an understanding of WHAT the text means so much as of HOW it means what it means. Understanding the meaning must precede analysis. And that is why so much classroom work and self-study of Greek (and other languages, of course) turns ou
   t so often to be a waste of time: students can recite paradigms of verbs and nouns and regurgitate glossaries of Greek verbs and nouns and recite the rules of syntax — and still be unable to make sense of Greek texts.

   The distinction between “transitive” and “intransitive” verb usage is helpful and will continue to be helpful to students who haven’t learned and constructed a more useful way of accounting for the way verbs work in context with other words with which they construe in particular texts. Iver has referred to an alternative method of accounting for how these elements of Greek statements relate to each other; many students of Greek do indeed find that alternative more helpful. What’s problematic, however, is that the reference works upon which we must rely for want of better reference works still employ terminology that some of us believe is outdated and unhelpful. BDAG is really a very fine lexicon for Biblical and early Christian literature; it’s barely ten years since this edition was published — but many of us believe that decscribing a verb-form as “passive with active usage” is, if not something worse, an instance of “obscurum per obscurius” — a still murkier explanation
   of something that’s murky in the first place.

   “Deponency” is a grammatical “doctrine” (by which I mean a bit of traditional lore about the voice of Greek verbs that don’t conform to the rules as traditionally understood) that is currently under attack. Despite a dissertation in defense of the doctrine written at Dallas Seminary recently, the doctrine was the subject of a special session on Greek Linguistics at last November’s meeting of SBL in Atlanta; the upshot of that session is that the ranks of defenders of the doctrine have thinned very considerably as more intelligible accounts of Greek verbal voice phenomena have been offered and the ways that middle and passive forms actually function in ancient Greek are being analyzed in more helpful ways. The facts to be explained remain “messy” but the explanations offered for those facts seem to many to be LESS messy than they are in the traditional doctrine of “deponency.”

   The fact is that we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs. NOT ONE of us reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the text’s meaning gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud. Some of us are not “rank” amateurs, but not one of us can honestly claim to be an “accomplished” professional either.

   Carl W. Conrad
   Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

   —

     Reply

     February 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm
3. Mark Lightman says:

   <...Despite a dissertation in defense of the doctrine (of deponency) written at
   Dallas Seminary recently…>

   Hi, Carl,

   Is this available on line? If not, what is the essence of the defense, other
   than the very sound advice that it is better to bear those ills we have than to
   fly to others that we know not of.
   Mark L

   FWSFOROS MARKOS

   ________________________________
   Sent: Sat, February 12, 2011 7:11:32 AM

   I was going to respond to this off list, but what I want to write to you is
   largely what I have written so frequently on list that it’s become boring. My
   “ad nauseam” notes have a reputation and an “odor” on B-Greek. Bear with me: I’m
   a 76-year-old retired Greek teacher, away from the campus for ten years now,
   having taught my last Greek class in January of 2001. But I hope that I’m
   harmless … and BG regulars will know to delete before they’ve reached the end
   of this opening paragraph.

   It’s worth noting — and bearing always in mind — that the better English
   translations don’t endeavor to render the Greek original in the word-order or
   grammatical structures of the Greek but rather in word-order and grammatical
   sructures that are appropriate to good English prose. Of course, every English
   translation from the Greek is an interpretation of the Greek, and unless the
   Greek original is so concrete and simple that it doesn’t say anything very
   important, it is almost certainly going to skew and misrepresent the original in
   some way or other — not intentionally, ordinarily — although the translation
   is often skewed in part by the translator’s own preconceptions. That’s what the
   old Italian proverb is intended to convey: “Traduttori traditori” —
   “Translators are not to be trusted!” I’ve often (too often?) said that one
   seeking to gain competence in Biblical Greek should aim at understanding what
   the original Greek is communicating in its own terms, and NOT on ho
   w that Greek will sound or look in an English translation.

   One of the insights into how language works that I’ve gained relatively recently
   is that grammar — including lexicology, syntactic rules, morphology, etc. –,
   whether it’s the traditional grammar of “dead scholars” of the decades and
   centuries past or the theoretical constructions and analyses of the academic
   linguists of more recent years — is fundamentally analytic. It’s function is to
   help us explain or give an account to ourselves and each other about HOW the
   Greek utterance or written statement means what we understand it to mean. I
   honestly believe that grammatical analysis cannot begin until one has already
   reached at least a tentative understanding of the Greek text. But I also believe
   that grammatical analysis will not help one reach an understanding of WHAT the
   text means so much as of HOW it means what it means. Understanding the meaning
   must precede analysis. And that is why so much classroom work and self-study of
   Greek (and other languages, of course) turns ou
   t so often to be a waste of time: students can recite paradigms of verbs and
   nouns and regurgitate glossaries of Greek verbs and nouns and recite the rules
   of syntax — and still be unable to make sense of Greek texts.

   The distinction between “transitive” and “intransitive” verb usage is helpful
   and will continue to be helpful to students who haven’t learned and constructed
   a more useful way of accounting for the way verbs work in context with other
   words with which they construe in particular texts. Iver has referred to an
   alternative method of accounting for how these elements of Greek statements
   relate to each other; many students of Greek do indeed find that alternative
   more helpful. What’s problematic, however, is that the reference works upon
   which we must rely for want of better reference works still employ terminology
   that some of us believe is outdated and unhelpful. BDAG is really a very fine
   lexicon for Biblical and early Christian literature; it’s barely ten years since
   this edition was published — but many of us believe that decscribing a
   verb-form as “passive with active usage” is, if not something worse, an instance
   of “obscurum per obscurius” — a still murkier explanation
   of something that’s murky in the first place.

   “Deponency” is a grammatical “doctrine” (by which I mean a bit of traditional
   lore about the voice of Greek verbs that don’t conform to the rules as
   traditionally understood) that is currently under attack. Despite a dissertation
   in defense of the doctrine written at Dallas Seminary recently, the doctrine was
   the subject of a special session on Greek Linguistics at last November’s
   meeting of SBL in Atlanta; the upshot of that session is that the ranks of
   defenders of the doctrine have thinned very considerably as more intelligible
   accounts of Greek verbal voice phenomena have been offered and the ways that
   middle and passive forms actually function in ancient Greek are being analyzed
   in more helpful ways. The facts to be explained remain “messy” but the
   explanations offered for those facts seem to many to be LESS messy than they are
   in the traditional doctrine of “deponency.”

   The fact is that we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs. NOT ONE of us
   reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the text’s meaning
   gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud. Some of us are not
   “rank” amateurs, but not one of us can honestly claim to be an “accomplished”
   professional either.

   Carl W. Conrad
   Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

   —

     Reply

     February 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm
4. Carl Conrad says:

   The author, in my opinion, doesn’t really understand the ancient evidence
   (Dionysius Thrax et al.), doesn’t seriously engage recent work by Suzanne
   Kemmer and Rutger Allan in particular, doesn’t talk about my work because
   it’s unpublished (although readily accessible), and thinks that the doctrine is
   serviceable still. That does amount, IMHO, to the “very sound advice” to
   which you refer — with the addendum “nor wish to know.”

   Carl W. Conrad
   Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

   —

     Reply

     February 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm
5. "Alastair Haines" says:

   “NOT ONE of us reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the
   text’s meaning
   gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud.”
   Carl Conrad

   Liberating words of great honesty from you, Sir.
   And, in context, your words are great encouragement for ongoing study of
   Greek for any and all of us,
   and especially for academic work that seeks to serve this and future
   generations of students
   with ever more satisfactory, and natural, *explanation* of forms and syntax.

   I, for one, am glad I pressed the READ button rather than the “FILE” button
   for your posting, Sir.
   alastair

   Below is a snip of the original context.

   But I am a very amateur self taught NT Greek reader. I offer that in way of
   introduction.

   Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 1:11 AM
   The fact is that we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs. NOT ONE
   of us reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the text’s
   meaning gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud. Some
   of us are not “rank” amateurs, but not one of us can honestly claim to be an
   “accomplished” professional either.
   Carl W. Conrad
   Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

   —

     Reply

     February 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm
6. "Raymond C Olson" says:

   Dear Carl,
   As a lurking mentoree, I read through, resonated and was reminded and
   greatly encouraged to press on in NTG. Thank you! If I can presume to be
   included in the “we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs,” I’m
   surely somewhere at the bottom of the heap. Thanks again for wise and
   valuable counsel.
   Ray

   —–Original Message—–
   Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 7:11 AM

   I was going to respond to this off list, but what I want to write to you is
   largely what I have written so frequently on list that it’s become boring.
   My “ad nauseam” notes have a reputation and an “odor” on B-Greek. Bear with
   me: I’m a 76-year-old retired Greek teacher, away from the campus for ten
   years now, having taught my last Greek class in January of 2001. But I hope
   that I’m harmless … and BG regulars will know to delete before they’ve
   reached the end of this opening paragraph.

   It’s worth noting — and bearing always in mind — that the better English
   translations don’t endeavor to render the Greek original in the word-order
   or grammatical structures of the Greek but rather in word-order and
   grammatical sructures that are appropriate to good English prose. Of course,
   every English translation from the Greek is an interpretation of the Greek,
   and unless the Greek original is so concrete and simple that it doesn’t say
   anything very important, it is almost certainly going to skew and
   misrepresent the original in some way or other — not intentionally,
   ordinarily — although the translation is often skewed in part by the
   translator’s own preconceptions. That’s what the old Italian proverb is
   intended to convey: “Traduttori traditori” — “Translators are not to be
   trusted!” I’ve often (too often?) said that one seeking to gain competence
   in Biblical Greek should aim at understanding what the original Greek is
   communicating in its own terms, and NOT on ho
   w that Greek will sound or look in an English translation.

   One of the insights into how language works that I’ve gained relatively
   recently is that grammar — including lexicology, syntactic rules,
   morphology, etc. –, whether it’s the traditional grammar of “dead scholars”
   of the decades and centuries past or the theoretical constructions and
   analyses of the academic linguists of more recent years — is fundamentally
   analytic. It’s function is to help us explain or give an account to
   ourselves and each other about HOW the Greek utterance or written statement
   means what we understand it to mean. I honestly believe that grammatical
   analysis cannot begin until one has already reached at least a tentative
   understanding of the Greek text. But I also believe that grammatical
   analysis will not help one reach an understanding of WHAT the text means so
   much as of HOW it means what it means. Understanding the meaning must
   precede analysis. And that is why so much classroom work and self-study of
   Greek (and other languages, of course) turns ou
   t so often to be a waste of time: students can recite paradigms of verbs and
   nouns and regurgitate glossaries of Greek verbs and nouns and recite the
   rules of syntax — and still be unable to make sense of Greek texts.

   The distinction between “transitive” and “intransitive” verb usage is
   helpful and will continue to be helpful to students who haven’t learned and
   constructed a more useful way of accounting for the way verbs work in
   context with other words with which they construe in particular texts. Iver
   has referred to an alternative method of accounting for how these elements
   of Greek statements relate to each other; many students of Greek do indeed
   find that alternative more helpful. What’s problematic, however, is that the
   reference works upon which we must rely for want of better reference works
   still employ terminology that some of us believe is outdated and unhelpful.
   BDAG is really a very fine lexicon for Biblical and early Christian
   literature; it’s barely ten years since this edition was published — but
   many of us believe that decscribing a verb-form as “passive with active
   usage” is, if not something worse, an instance of “obscurum per
   obscurius” — a still murkier explanation
   of something that’s murky in the first place.

   “Deponency” is a grammatical “doctrine” (by which I mean a bit of
   traditional lore about the voice of Greek verbs that don’t conform to the
   rules as traditionally understood) that is currently under attack. Despite a
   dissertation in defense of the doctrine written at Dallas Seminary recently,
   the doctrine was the subject of a special session on Greek Linguistics at
   last November’s meeting of SBL in Atlanta; the upshot of that session is
   that the ranks of defenders of the doctrine have thinned very considerably
   as more intelligible accounts of Greek verbal voice phenomena have been
   offered and the ways that middle and passive forms actually function in
   ancient Greek are being analyzed in more helpful ways. The facts to be
   explained remain “messy” but the explanations offered for those facts seem
   to many to be LESS messy than they are in the traditional doctrine of
   “deponency.”

   The fact is that we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs. NOT ONE
   of us reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the text’s
   meaning gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud. Some
   of us are not “rank” amateurs, but not one of us can honestly claim to be an
   “accomplished” professional either.

   Carl W. Conrad
   Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

   —

     Reply

     February 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm
7. Richard Smith says:

   Very thorough and informative. Thanks to all who helped with their comments. I think part of my misreading is that English translation definitions may use words with transitive and intransitive senses, and sometimes I miss that a particular Greek form may not have convey both of the transitive and intransitive senses of the English translation. I apply the English possibilites to the Greek. I will be more attuned to that going forward.

    And “transitive” and “intransitive” are helpful classifications for me, as is “deponent” still.

   But I am a very amateur self taught NT Greek reader. I offer that in way of introduction.

   Thanks,

   Richard

   —– Original Message —–
   Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 1:46:31 AM

   In the BDAG entry for ἀποστρέφω APOSTREFW it is said no less than twice: “2d
   aor. pass. in act. sense.” That is not very helpful and it is based on an
   obsolete approach to grammar. Nor is it very helpful to talk in terms of
   transitive and intransitive since these are purely syntactical terms. It is more
   interesting to look at such verbs in terms of semantics and also accept that
   what is morphologically called “passive” is often semantically middle.

   This verb is extremely common in the LXX, but less common in the NT. Of the 9
   occurrences in the NT, 4 are MP (middle-passive), while 5 are active.

   The verb commonly has three primary roles and one secondary. The semantic
   scenario is one of movement from one position to another. The semantic roles are
   A (Agent) and P (Patient) which in the case of a person is often called E
   (Experiencer) and L (Location). For this verb I prefer to talk about the primary
   location as Pos1 (Position 1, i.e. where the movement starts from) and the
   secondary location as Pos2 (where the movement ends or is directed towards.)
   When the A and E roles refer to the same referent, Greek would often use a
   middle.

   Let me illustrate it with

   Mat 26:52 τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀπόστρεψον τὴν μάχαιράν σου εἰς τὸν τόπον
   αὐτῆς
   TOTE LEGEI AUTWI hO IHSOUS, APOSTREYON THN MACAIRAN SOU EIS TON TOPON AUTHS
   Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place.

   Because of the imperative, the Agent is expressed in the verb form (you, the
   addressee, Peter). The Patient is the sword, Pos1 is implicit (in his hand) and
   Pos2 is indicated by an EIS phrase. Such a prepositional phrase is common for a
   secondary (or peripheral) semantic role. The Agent is different from the P and
   therefore an Active form is used.

   The other NT examples are also instructive:

   Mat 5:42 τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς
   TWi AITOUNTI SE DOS, KAI TON QELONTA APO SOUD DANISASQAI MH APOSTRAFHiS
   Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn yourself away from the one who
   wants to borrow from you

   Here the A refers to the same person as the P/E while Pos1 and Pos2 are not
   specified. Do not turn yourself away from a position of not wanting to help to a
   position of wanting to help. That is why the middle form is used, even if it is
   called a “passive”.

   Luk 23:14 εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Προσηνέγκατέ μοι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον ὡς
   ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν
   EIPEN PROS AUTOUS, PROSHNEGKATE MOI TON ANQRWPON TOUTON hWS APOSTREFONTA TON
   LAON
   He said to them: You have brought to me this person as someone who turns away
   the people

   A is Jesus, P/E is the people and Pos1 is a position of obedience, while Pos 2
   is a position of revolt. Since A and P/E are different, an active is used.

   Rom 11:26  Ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ.
   hHXEI EK ZIWN hO RUOMENOS APOSTREYEI ASEBEIAS APO IAKWB
   The deliverer will come from Zion to turn ungodliness away from Jakob

   Here the A is Jesus (implicit), the P is ungodliness and Pos1 is Jacob/Israel.
   As expected an active form is used.

   2 Tim 1:15 ἀπεστράφησάν με πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ
   APESTRAFHSAN ME PANTES hOI EN THi ASIAi
   All (my co-workers) who (are) in Asia have turned themselves away from me.

   Here we have the middle since the A and P/E refer to the same people. Pos1 is
   “me”. Pos2 is implicit.

   2 Tim 4:4 καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέψουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς μύθους
   ἐκτραπήσονται.
   KAI APO MEN THS ALHQEIAS THN AKOHN APOSTREYOUSIN, EPI DE TOUS MUQOUS
   EKTRAPHSONTAI
   And while/on the one hand they will turn the ear from the truth, they will (on
   the other hand) turn themselves to myths.

   A is the people, P is the ear, Pos1 is the truth and Pos 2 is the myths which is
   syntactically connected to the parallel middle verb EKTRAPHSONTAI

   Tit 1:4 μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων
   τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
   MH PROSECONTES IOUDAIKOIS MUQOIS KAI ENTOLAIS ANQRWPWN APOSTREFOMENWN THN
   ALHQEIAN
   not holding on to Jewish myths and commandments of human origin while turning
   themselves away from the truth

   The verb is middle because A and P/E refer to the same people. Pos1 is the
   truth. Pos2 is the myths and commandments. There is a certain flexibility in how
   Pos1 is expressed in the syntax. It may be a simple accusative as here or a
   prepositional phrase with APO as above. It is probably occasioned by whether
   there is already another accusative in the construction or not.

   Heb 12:25 οἱ τὸν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν ἀποστρεφόμενοι
   hOI TON AP’ OURANWN APOSTREFOMENOI
   those who (were) turning themselves away (from the voice) from heaven

   Let me finish with a couple of examples form the LXX. Since this mail is a
   follow-up to Acts 3:26, I want to look at those with hEKASTOS:

   Ruth 1:8 καὶ εἶπεν Νωεμιν ταῖς νύμφαις αὐτῆς Πορεύεσθε δὴ ἀποστράφητε ἑκάστη εἰς
   οἶκον μητρὸς αὐτῆς
   KAI EIPEN NWEMIN TAIS NUMFAIS AUTHS, POREUESQE DH APOSTRAFHTE hEKASTH EIS OIKON
   MHTROS AUTHS
   And Naomi said to here daughters-in-law: You go each one you turn yourself back
   to the house of her mother

   The middle is used since the daughters have their own free will to turn or not.
   (One does, the other does not.) The A is the same referent as the P/E. Pos1 is
   implicit, Pos2 is expressed by an EIS phrase.

   2 Ch 11:4 Τάδε λέγει κύριος Οὐκ ἀναβήσεσθε καὶ οὐ πολεμήσετε πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς
   ὑμῶν· ἀποστρέφετε ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ
   TADE LEGEI KURIOS, OUK ANABHSESQE KAI OU POLEUHSETE PROS TOUS ADELFOUS hUMWN.
   APOSTREFETE hEKASTOS EIS TON OIKON AUTOU

   Then the Lord says: Do not go up and do not make war against your brothers.
   You(plural) must return each one to his own house.

   Here the active is used. This may be a stylistic variation by the translator,
   but I think it is more likely that the active puts focus on God who makes them
   turn rather than on them returning out of their own volition or initiative.
   There is a similar active form in Jer 27:16, although Jeremiah usually has the
   middle form (18:11, 23:14, 25:5, 33:3, 42:15).

   Jon 3:8 καὶ ἀπέστρεψαν ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς
   KAI APESTREYAN hEKASTOS APO THS hODOU AUTOU THS PONHRAS
   and they must turn, each one from his evil way

   Again the active is probably because of an implicit A different form those who
   are to turn. It is a command from the king to the people, similar to the
   previous example.

   Iver Larsen

   —

     Reply

     May 15, 2018 at 9:07 pm
8. Carl Conrad says:

   I was going to respond to this off list, but what I want to write to you is largely what I have written so frequently on list that it’s become boring. My “ad nauseam” notes have a reputation and an “odor” on B-Greek. Bear with me: I’m a 76-year-old retired Greek teacher, away from the campus for ten years now, having taught my last Greek class in January of 2001. But I hope that I’m harmless … and BG regulars will know to delete before they’ve reached the end of this opening paragraph.

   It’s worth noting — and bearing always in mind — that the better English translations don’t endeavor to render the Greek original in the word-order or grammatical structures of the Greek but rather in word-order and grammatical sructures that are appropriate to good English prose. Of course, every English translation from the Greek is an interpretation of the Greek, and unless the Greek original is so concrete and simple that it doesn’t say anything very important, it is almost certainly going to skew and misrepresent the original in some way or other — not intentionally, ordinarily — although the translation is often skewed in part by the translator’s own preconceptions. That’s what the old Italian proverb is intended to convey: “Traduttori traditori” — “Translators are not to be trusted!” I’ve often (too often?) said that one seeking to gain competence in Biblical Greek should aim at understanding what the original Greek is communicating in its own terms, and NOT on ho
   w that Greek will sound or look in an English translation.

   One of the insights into how language works that I’ve gained relatively recently is that grammar — including lexicology, syntactic rules, morphology, etc. –, whether it’s the traditional grammar of “dead scholars” of the decades and centuries past or the theoretical constructions and analyses of the academic linguists of more recent years — is fundamentally analytic. It’s function is to help us explain or give an account to ourselves and each other about HOW the Greek utterance or written statement means what we understand it to mean. I honestly believe that grammatical analysis cannot begin until one has already reached at least a tentative understanding of the Greek text. But I also believe that grammatical analysis will not help one reach an understanding of WHAT the text means so much as of HOW it means what it means. Understanding the meaning must precede analysis. And that is why so much classroom work and self-study of Greek (and other languages, of course) turns ou
   t so often to be a waste of time: students can recite paradigms of verbs and nouns and regurgitate glossaries of Greek verbs and nouns and recite the rules of syntax — and still be unable to make sense of Greek texts.

   The distinction between “transitive” and “intransitive” verb usage is helpful and will continue to be helpful to students who haven’t learned and constructed a more useful way of accounting for the way verbs work in context with other words with which they construe in particular texts. Iver has referred to an alternative method of accounting for how these elements of Greek statements relate to each other; many students of Greek do indeed find that alternative more helpful. What’s problematic, however, is that the reference works upon which we must rely for want of better reference works still employ terminology that some of us believe is outdated and unhelpful. BDAG is really a very fine lexicon for Biblical and early Christian literature; it’s barely ten years since this edition was published — but many of us believe that decscribing a verb-form as “passive with active usage” is, if not something worse, an instance of “obscurum per obscurius” — a still murkier explanation
   of something that’s murky in the first place.

   “Deponency” is a grammatical “doctrine” (by which I mean a bit of traditional lore about the voice of Greek verbs that don’t conform to the rules as traditionally understood) that is currently under attack. Despite a dissertation in defense of the doctrine written at Dallas Seminary recently, the doctrine was the subject of a special session on Greek Linguistics at last November’s meeting of SBL in Atlanta; the upshot of that session is that the ranks of defenders of the doctrine have thinned very considerably as more intelligible accounts of Greek verbal voice phenomena have been offered and the ways that middle and passive forms actually function in ancient Greek are being analyzed in more helpful ways. The facts to be explained remain “messy” but the explanations offered for those facts seem to many to be LESS messy than they are in the traditional doctrine of “deponency.”

   The fact is that we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs. NOT ONE of us reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the text’s meaning gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud. Some of us are not “rank” amateurs, but not one of us can honestly claim to be an “accomplished” professional either.

   Carl W. Conrad
   Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

   —

     Reply

     May 15, 2018 at 9:06 pm
9. Mark Lightman says:

   <...Despite a dissertation in defense of the doctrine (of deponency) written at
   Dallas Seminary recently…>

   Hi, Carl,

   Is this available on line? If not, what is the essence of the defense, other
   than the very sound advice that it is better to bear those ills we have than to
   fly to others that we know not of.
   Mark L

   FWSFOROS MARKOS

   ________________________________
   Sent: Sat, February 12, 2011 7:11:32 AM

   I was going to respond to this off list, but what I want to write to you is
   largely what I have written so frequently on list that it’s become boring. My
   “ad nauseam” notes have a reputation and an “odor” on B-Greek. Bear with me: I’m
   a 76-year-old retired Greek teacher, away from the campus for ten years now,
   having taught my last Greek class in January of 2001. But I hope that I’m
   harmless … and BG regulars will know to delete before they’ve reached the end
   of this opening paragraph.

   It’s worth noting — and bearing always in mind — that the better English
   translations don’t endeavor to render the Greek original in the word-order or
   grammatical structures of the Greek but rather in word-order and grammatical
   sructures that are appropriate to good English prose. Of course, every English
   translation from the Greek is an interpretation of the Greek, and unless the
   Greek original is so concrete and simple that it doesn’t say anything very
   important, it is almost certainly going to skew and misrepresent the original in
   some way or other — not intentionally, ordinarily — although the translation
   is often skewed in part by the translator’s own preconceptions. That’s what the
   old Italian proverb is intended to convey: “Traduttori traditori” —
   “Translators are not to be trusted!” I’ve often (too often?) said that one
   seeking to gain competence in Biblical Greek should aim at understanding what
   the original Greek is communicating in its own terms, and NOT on ho
   w that Greek will sound or look in an English translation.

   One of the insights into how language works that I’ve gained relatively recently
   is that grammar — including lexicology, syntactic rules, morphology, etc. –,
   whether it’s the traditional grammar of “dead scholars” of the decades and
   centuries past or the theoretical constructions and analyses of the academic
   linguists of more recent years — is fundamentally analytic. It’s function is to
   help us explain or give an account to ourselves and each other about HOW the
   Greek utterance or written statement means what we understand it to mean. I
   honestly believe that grammatical analysis cannot begin until one has already
   reached at least a tentative understanding of the Greek text. But I also believe
   that grammatical analysis will not help one reach an understanding of WHAT the
   text means so much as of HOW it means what it means. Understanding the meaning
   must precede analysis. And that is why so much classroom work and self-study of
   Greek (and other languages, of course) turns ou
   t so often to be a waste of time: students can recite paradigms of verbs and
   nouns and regurgitate glossaries of Greek verbs and nouns and recite the rules
   of syntax — and still be unable to make sense of Greek texts.

   The distinction between “transitive” and “intransitive” verb usage is helpful
   and will continue to be helpful to students who haven’t learned and constructed
   a more useful way of accounting for the way verbs work in context with other
   words with which they construe in particular texts. Iver has referred to an
   alternative method of accounting for how these elements of Greek statements
   relate to each other; many students of Greek do indeed find that alternative
   more helpful. What’s problematic, however, is that the reference works upon
   which we must rely for want of better reference works still employ terminology
   that some of us believe is outdated and unhelpful. BDAG is really a very fine
   lexicon for Biblical and early Christian literature; it’s barely ten years since
   this edition was published — but many of us believe that decscribing a
   verb-form as “passive with active usage” is, if not something worse, an instance
   of “obscurum per obscurius” — a still murkier explanation
   of something that’s murky in the first place.

   “Deponency” is a grammatical “doctrine” (by which I mean a bit of traditional
   lore about the voice of Greek verbs that don’t conform to the rules as
   traditionally understood) that is currently under attack. Despite a dissertation
   in defense of the doctrine written at Dallas Seminary recently, the doctrine was
   the subject of a special session on Greek Linguistics at last November’s
   meeting of SBL in Atlanta; the upshot of that session is that the ranks of
   defenders of the doctrine have thinned very considerably as more intelligible
   accounts of Greek verbal voice phenomena have been offered and the ways that
   middle and passive forms actually function in ancient Greek are being analyzed
   in more helpful ways. The facts to be explained remain “messy” but the
   explanations offered for those facts seem to many to be LESS messy than they are
   in the traditional doctrine of “deponency.”

   The fact is that we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs. NOT ONE of us
   reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the text’s meaning
   gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud. Some of us are not
   “rank” amateurs, but not one of us can honestly claim to be an “accomplished”
   professional either.

   Carl W. Conrad
   Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

   —

     Reply

     May 15, 2018 at 9:06 pm
10. Carl Conrad says:

    The author, in my opinion, doesn’t really understand the ancient evidence
    (Dionysius Thrax et al.), doesn’t seriously engage recent work by Suzanne
    Kemmer and Rutger Allan in particular, doesn’t talk about my work because
    it’s unpublished (although readily accessible), and thinks that the doctrine is
    serviceable still. That does amount, IMHO, to the “very sound advice” to
    which you refer — with the addendum “nor wish to know.”

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

    —

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 9:07 pm
11. "Alastair Haines" says:

    “NOT ONE of us reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the
    text’s meaning
    gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud.”
    Carl Conrad

    Liberating words of great honesty from you, Sir.
    And, in context, your words are great encouragement for ongoing study of
    Greek for any and all of us,
    and especially for academic work that seeks to serve this and future
    generations of students
    with ever more satisfactory, and natural, *explanation* of forms and syntax.

    I, for one, am glad I pressed the READ button rather than the “FILE” button
    for your posting, Sir.
    alastair

    Below is a snip of the original context.

    But I am a very amateur self taught NT Greek reader. I offer that in way of
    introduction.

    Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 1:11 AM
    The fact is that we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs. NOT ONE
    of us reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the text’s
    meaning gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud. Some
    of us are not “rank” amateurs, but not one of us can honestly claim to be an
    “accomplished” professional either.
    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

    —

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 9:06 pm
12. "Raymond C Olson" says:

    Dear Carl,
    As a lurking mentoree, I read through, resonated and was reminded and
    greatly encouraged to press on in NTG. Thank you! If I can presume to be
    included in the “we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs,” I’m
    surely somewhere at the bottom of the heap. Thanks again for wise and
    valuable counsel.
    Ray

    —–Original Message—–
    Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 7:11 AM

    I was going to respond to this off list, but what I want to write to you is
    largely what I have written so frequently on list that it’s become boring.
    My “ad nauseam” notes have a reputation and an “odor” on B-Greek. Bear with
    me: I’m a 76-year-old retired Greek teacher, away from the campus for ten
    years now, having taught my last Greek class in January of 2001. But I hope
    that I’m harmless … and BG regulars will know to delete before they’ve
    reached the end of this opening paragraph.

    It’s worth noting — and bearing always in mind — that the better English
    translations don’t endeavor to render the Greek original in the word-order
    or grammatical structures of the Greek but rather in word-order and
    grammatical sructures that are appropriate to good English prose. Of course,
    every English translation from the Greek is an interpretation of the Greek,
    and unless the Greek original is so concrete and simple that it doesn’t say
    anything very important, it is almost certainly going to skew and
    misrepresent the original in some way or other — not intentionally,
    ordinarily — although the translation is often skewed in part by the
    translator’s own preconceptions. That’s what the old Italian proverb is
    intended to convey: “Traduttori traditori” — “Translators are not to be
    trusted!” I’ve often (too often?) said that one seeking to gain competence
    in Biblical Greek should aim at understanding what the original Greek is
    communicating in its own terms, and NOT on ho
    w that Greek will sound or look in an English translation.

    One of the insights into how language works that I’ve gained relatively
    recently is that grammar — including lexicology, syntactic rules,
    morphology, etc. –, whether it’s the traditional grammar of “dead scholars”
    of the decades and centuries past or the theoretical constructions and
    analyses of the academic linguists of more recent years — is fundamentally
    analytic. It’s function is to help us explain or give an account to
    ourselves and each other about HOW the Greek utterance or written statement
    means what we understand it to mean. I honestly believe that grammatical
    analysis cannot begin until one has already reached at least a tentative
    understanding of the Greek text. But I also believe that grammatical
    analysis will not help one reach an understanding of WHAT the text means so
    much as of HOW it means what it means. Understanding the meaning must
    precede analysis. And that is why so much classroom work and self-study of
    Greek (and other languages, of course) turns ou
    t so often to be a waste of time: students can recite paradigms of verbs and
    nouns and regurgitate glossaries of Greek verbs and nouns and recite the
    rules of syntax — and still be unable to make sense of Greek texts.

    The distinction between “transitive” and “intransitive” verb usage is
    helpful and will continue to be helpful to students who haven’t learned and
    constructed a more useful way of accounting for the way verbs work in
    context with other words with which they construe in particular texts. Iver
    has referred to an alternative method of accounting for how these elements
    of Greek statements relate to each other; many students of Greek do indeed
    find that alternative more helpful. What’s problematic, however, is that the
    reference works upon which we must rely for want of better reference works
    still employ terminology that some of us believe is outdated and unhelpful.
    BDAG is really a very fine lexicon for Biblical and early Christian
    literature; it’s barely ten years since this edition was published — but
    many of us believe that decscribing a verb-form as “passive with active
    usage” is, if not something worse, an instance of “obscurum per
    obscurius” — a still murkier explanation
    of something that’s murky in the first place.

    “Deponency” is a grammatical “doctrine” (by which I mean a bit of
    traditional lore about the voice of Greek verbs that don’t conform to the
    rules as traditionally understood) that is currently under attack. Despite a
    dissertation in defense of the doctrine written at Dallas Seminary recently,
    the doctrine was the subject of a special session on Greek Linguistics at
    last November’s meeting of SBL in Atlanta; the upshot of that session is
    that the ranks of defenders of the doctrine have thinned very considerably
    as more intelligible accounts of Greek verbal voice phenomena have been
    offered and the ways that middle and passive forms actually function in
    ancient Greek are being analyzed in more helpful ways. The facts to be
    explained remain “messy” but the explanations offered for those facts seem
    to many to be LESS messy than they are in the traditional doctrine of
    “deponency.”

    The fact is that we are ALL of us who deal with NT Greek amateurs. NOT ONE
    of us reads the NT Greek texts with the instantaneous grasp of the text’s
    meaning gained by those who first listened to those texts read aloud. Some
    of us are not “rank” amateurs, but not one of us can honestly claim to be an
    “accomplished” professional either.

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

    —

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 9:06 pm

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.