Greek Problems 1. In John 9:3, the translation of hINA ἵνα as imperatival does not seem to be as clearly imperatival as the examples given in Daniel B. Wallace, "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" (pp. 476-477). Also, there's the context. Jesus is answering a question as to "why" this blindness has occurred. It seems to me more to the point of the question that Jesus would give a simple answer as to the purpose of the occurrence rather than an imperative statement concerning what ought to happen. 2. John 11:4 Ἀκούζαρ δὲ ὁ Ἰηζοῦρ εἶπεν, Αὕηη ἡ ἀζθένεια οὐκ ἔζηιν ππὸρ θάναηον, ἀλλʼ ὑπὲπ ηῆρ δόξηρ ηοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα δοξαζθῇ ὁ ςἱὸρ ηοῦ θεοῦ διʼ αὐηῆρ. My question concerns δοξαζθῇ 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. Responses 1. But again, we don't have a purpose clause here. We do have the ellipsis with ALL'. This particular sickness (emphasis on THIS) is not towards death. However, now that is has happened, it will be for the glory of God, resulting in the Son of God being honored/raised up/glorified/seen as great through it (the sickness). I see no reason to take the verb as anything but passive. Jesus did not glorify himself. It was God's intervention, so it first brings glory to God, but by extension also glory to his Son. Nor do I, and I'm pleased that, if there is to be such a "rule of medio-passivity" ("If it ain't clearly marked as passive, then it must be middle") as Mark Lightman prefers to apply in this instance, that he has adopted that rule as his own; I certainly don't acknowledge it as mine. The verb DOXAZW is transitive and normally takes an object; I can see no direct-reflexive "make himself glorious" or indirect-reflexive "make glorious for his own sake" here. There's no reason to see this as anything other than a passive. 2.And I'll have to agree with Iver on this one too. And it should be noted that John's usage of the verb DOXAZW is consistently with reference to the death of Jesus as the manifestation of God's glory. The raising of Lazarus is the "trigger" in the Johannine sequence leading to the crucifixion. NET has a nice note here, i.e. with reference to John 11:4): "So that the Son of God may be glorified through it. These statements are highly ironic: For Lazarus, the sickness did not end in his death, because he was restored to life. But for Jesus himself, the miraculous sign he performed led to his own death, because it confirmed the authorities in their plan to kill Jesus (11:47–53). In the Gospel of John, Jesus’
death is consistently portrayed as his ‘glorification’ through which he accomplishes his return to the Father." Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired) 3.Yes, that's part of the process of getting to the heart of voice matters, trying to figure out which verbs lend themselves more to an active-passive split and which are more murky and are comfortable slipping into and out of their middle dress. I think you have used the term transparently transitive for verbs like APOKTEINW. Is DOXAZW transparently transitive?
Awhile back on a thread, we talked about the voice of SWiZW. Since then, noticing it all over the place inside and outside of the Greek NT, I find that it is not comfortable wearing middle clothes. It really does lend itself to pure passives, not middles. Greek verbs are like people. You have hang out with them in different circumstances to figure out what makes them tick.
What will happen now, is that I will start noticing DOXAZW and will get a sense of how transparently transitive it may be. We'll see, but George S's notion that the verb in the middle might mean "I fill myself up with splendor" is intriguing. Of course Jesus breaks the rules of grammar. If the Greeks thought that DOXA came to a man and not from within him, this would not apply to Jesus. Does Jesus ever do anything for his own sake? Does he ever not? We all know that the gospel makes analyzing Greek voice, and Greek in general, even more tricky.
Mark L
3.Luke 2:48 ". . . your father and I" This is evidently not GS, but I'm not sure how to say exactly why. Apparently it's over the word, KAGW, which appears to be a contraction for "and-I" Would the disqualification then be because a contraction doesn't count as a KAI, or would it be that "I" is considered a proper name? Or some other reason? John 17:3 --- as I recall, a hundred years or so ago, I thought that
this was a valid GS: The only True God AND Whom You sent, Jesus Christ. That "The only True God" was thus identified with "Whom You sent." As I remember, Dr. Conrad affirmed this, though I'm not too sure I understood him right, now. The question is whether the ON in KAI ON APOSTEILAS is an article. Some references say "it might be." Wallace seems to me to make John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20 "identical twin" passages in a discussion in GGBB. If not so, the verse seems quite singular, to say the least. Responses 1: Luke 2:48 ". . . your father and I" This is evidently not GS, but I'm not sure how to say exactly why. Apparently it's over the word, KAGW, which appears to be a contraction for "and-I"Would the disqualification then be because a contraction doesn't count as a KAI, or would it be that "I" is considered a proper name? Or some other reason? 2.ON is not an article; it is the accusative singular of the relative pronoun. Here there is an understood demonstrative, equivalent to EKEINON, functioning as the antecedent of hON: "the one/him whom you sent" And this verse too differentiates between "you" and "the one whom you sent." This is NOT a "GS" construction. TON construes with ALHQINON QEON but NOT with what follows it. 3.I think the pronoun SE clearly indicates that there are two people in John 17:3, "You, the only true God" (i.e., the Father), and Jesus, "whom You sent" (i.e., whom the Father sent).
4.Ephesians 3:18-19 hINA EXISCUSHTE KATALABESQAI SUN PASIN TOIS hAGIOIS TI ... GNWNAI TE THN ...AGAPHN TOU CRISTOU In my recent attempts to penetrate the logical flow of Ephesians 3:14-19, I've posed the following question: Does EXISCUSHTE govern both of the following infinitives (KATALABESQAI and GNWNAI); or does the TE following GNWNAI indicate the beginning of an epexigetical clause? 5. In Gal 1:6 how should tacewj be understood? Is it how quickly or how easily? 6. John 1:18 Problem Assuming that the reading above is to be preferred, how would you understand the referent of EKEINOS? Is it God with respect to his essence (in view of the anarthrous QEON) that MONOGENHS QEOS "explained" or is it more strictly
speaking, the Father that was explained? It could be the Father specifically since John writes about EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS Who did the Son likely explain? Was it God in his essence (since QEON is anarthrous) or was it the Father more specifically? I hope my question is worded properly this time around. (Edgar) Responses 1. I would reaffirm what I think is a standard view here, that EKEINOS refers to MONOGENHS QEOS hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS. I think this sense is pretty much that categorized in BDAG s.v. EKEINOS a.β.: β. referring back to and resuming a word immediately preceding, oft. weakened to he, she, it (X., An. 4, 3, 20; Just., D. 1, 3 al.) Mk 16:10f. Esp. oft. so in J: 5:37; 8:44; 10:6; 11:29; 12:48; 13:6 v.l.; 14:21, 26; 16:14 al. Hence 19:35 perh. the eyewitness (just mentioned) is meant, who then, to be sure, would be vouching for his own credibility and love of the truth (s. aG).—Interchanging w. AUTOS (cp. Thu. 1, 32, 5; X., Cyr. 4, 5, 20; Lysias 14, 28; Kühner-G. I 649) EZWGRHMENOI hUP᾿ AUTOU EIS TO EKEINOU QELHMA under the spell of his will 2 Ti 2:26. EKEINOS for AUTOS Lk 9:34 v.l.; 23:12 v.l. Used to produce greater emphasis: EKEINON LABWN take that one Mt 17:27; cp. J 5:43. THi EKEINOU CARITI by his grace Tit 3:7. Sim. after a participial subj. (X., Cyr. 6, 2, 33 hO GAR LOGCHN AKONWN, EKEINOS KAI THN YUCHN TI PARAKONAi=the one who sharpens his spear, he is the one who sharpens his inner self) TO EKPOREUOMENON EKEINO KOINOI Mk 7:20. hO PEMYAS EKEINOS J 1:33; cp 5:37 v.l. (for AUTOS) hO POIHSAS ME hUGIH EKEINOS 5:11. hO LALWN EKEINOS ESTIN 9:37. hO EISERCOMENOS EKEINOS KLEPTHS ESTIN 10:1. TWi LOGIZOMENWi . . . EKEINWi KOINON Ro 14:14 al. Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired) 2. The idea that when QEOS has the article it refers to His personhood, and when it does not, it refers to His essence, is by no means ironclad, and these terms are really too vague and subjective to be of much use. But in this case there may be something to it. Anarthrous θεον in v. 18a might well refer to an underlying essence that only Jesus saw and exegeted. The reference to Moses in v. 17 may have lead to the point that Moses saw God as a person but did not understand His essence. Mark L Problem Can someone help me with the last verb in Matt 13:15. Is it unusual that it
is indicative future? I was expecting another subjunctive. Would another subjunctive mean about the same thing if the author had chosen one? Is there a particular semantic function to the switch in mood with the last verb? I was thinking that perhaps the future ind. here could indicate the result of "turning". I appreciate your help. Responses Yes, it does indicate the consequences; note that IASOMAI is firstperson indicative future, its subject is God speaking; the subjunctive forms are all third-personal plural. Problem I am curious about how to understand PARRHSIA in Acts, generally translated "boldness" or confidence. It seems to me, especially given 4.13, that the word conveys more that courage to speak up, that it conveys persuasiveness, rhetorical skill, knowledge, learning. Of course with speaking skills comes confidence to speak. It seems though that the Holy Spirit has given more than boldness, it has given the how and the what to speak. Acts 2.29, 4.13, 29, 31, 28.31 Acts 9.27, 13.46, 14.3, 18.26, 19.8 And it may be that the context is what gives the broader meaning, if that broader meaning is there. (Richard) Problem could anyone tell me why there is no article tou in front of Joseph while throughout the list of the father/ancestors of Mary, there is always the presence of the article tou even up till "of Adam, of God"(Lk 3:38)? Responses ... regular expressions in names "X TOU Y" = "X son of Y." Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired) Some might argue that Joseph is anarthrous here because he is "new information." Problem In Luke 8:20, it is said of Jesus APHGGELH DE AUTW (And it was reported to him). The construction of APHGGELH is singular, but does that assume a singular person doing the reporting? OOW, if several people were saying it, would APHGGELH have to take a plural form?
To complicate matters, most manuscripts add LEGONTWN (some further add OTI). This is in the plural, thus answering my question--or so it appears. But does the omission of LEGONTWN (saying) only make the plurality of the speaker(s) less blatant, or remove all certainty? Any further speculation, of course, should be confined to a different list. Daniel Buck Responses PHGGELH is passive; the subject is the whole clause, hH MHTHR ... QELONTES SE. One might have expected a hOTI introducing this clause, but it is clearly the content of what those bringing the message to him reported. There's no indication at all of the person or persons bringing the report, but PROS AUTOUS in the next verse indicates that it was more than one. Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired) No, this would not be plural since it is a passive with the subject being that all-time favorite it -- It was reported ... he reading with λε όη ν LEGONTWN is a bit puzzling since it is a genitive participle unless it is taken as some form of agent "by those saying ..." george Problem Mark 16:9 PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU construes with ANASTAS or EFANH? (Oun Kwon) Responses With the syntax of ANASTAS DE PRWÏ PRWTHi SABBATOU in Mk, is it possible to see some help from the example of the syntax of Mt 28:1? OYE DE SABBATWN TH EPIFWSKOUSHi EIS MIAN SABBATWN, HLQEN MARIAM hH MAGDALHNHi KAI hH ALLH MARIA. I wonder whether I can see ANSTAS DE in Mk to correspond to OYE DE SABBATWN in Mt so as to make the phrase PRWÏ PRWTHi SABBATOU in Mk be more likely construed kataphorically with EFANH. Personally it seems to me very natural to read it anaphorically construed as most of English translations render, taking also 'early' as 'early in the morning' not 'early in a Jewish day right after the
sunset'. Oun Kwon.
