Ambiguities in Greek Auxiliary Verbs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manfred

Guest
I would really like to hear from some Greek NT scholars on this.

General question: Are there ambiguities in translating certain Greek auxiliary verbs?

Specifically, in Luke 1:28, should the Greek be translated as “How shall this be” or “How can this be”?

Similarly, in 1Corinthians 7:9, should it be “if they do not contain themselves” or “if they cannot contain themselves”?

I find it quite interesting that both the (Protestant) American Standard Version (ASV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB) feature wording similar to the first rendering in each of the two cases above.
 
In linguistics, an auxiliary (also called helping verb, auxiliary verb, or verbal auxiliary) is a verb functioning to give further semantic or syntactic information about the main or full verb following it. In English, the extra meaning an auxiliary verb imparts alters the basic form of the main verb to have one or more of the following functions: passive, progressive, perfect, modal, or dummy. The auxiliary verbs are be and have.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verb

biblestudymanuals.net/new_testament_greek.htm

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231(199423)113%3A3%3C534%3AIOTGNT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1069-8337(188506%2F12)5%3A1%2F2%3C76%3AEAGWPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

foundalis.com/lan/grkverbs.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&q=auxiliary+verbs+greek+new+testament+ambiguities&btnG=Search
 
In linguistics, an auxiliary (also called helping verb, auxiliary verb, or verbal auxiliary) is a verb functioning to give further semantic or syntactic information about the main or full verb following it. In English, the extra meaning an auxiliary verb imparts alters the basic form of the main verb to have one or more of the following functions: passive, progressive, perfect, modal, or dummy. The auxiliary verbs are be and have.
OK, so, perhaps I’ll restate the question:

Is the use of “can” in the verses quoted a possible, legitimate translation of the Greek?
 
Let’s take apart the sentence in Luke 1:34.

Luke 1:34 ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον πως εσται τουτο επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω

said ( δε, but) MARIAM (μαριαμ) to the angel (αγγελον)

πως ---- HOW / in what manner
εσ-ται - be – perfect middle/passive.
τουτο - THIS (as subject, aka “nominative” )
επει - SINCE
ανδρ - α – MALE (collective as new subject, aka. “nominative” )
ου - short form of ouk – NOT
γινωσκ - ω – “I am knowing” – present/fut and indicative active

The verb you are asking about is εσται (estai) – the tai on the end tells us that the verb is in the perfect middle (or passive) form. The same ending is used for middle or passive verbs so you have to guess which is meant from the context.

If taken as a middle verb, the subject does the action for its own interest. That would mean “this” is being for itself somehow.
If taken as passive, the subject of the sentence has the action done to it. Being is happening to “this”.
Both amount to the same thing, the proclamation of the angel has happened and possibly for a reason associated with what the angel said.

Tag onto that the question “How” or “in what way” and the idea is complete.

Literally, Mary is asking “In what way IS this now and to continue”
which is a very awkward translation.

The only other verb in the sentence “I am knowing” talks about now and the future, so it suggests the same thing.

Generally one translates “Shall”, “Ought”, words which are in the imperative – so really the translation is more of “can” since the imperative is not present, which suggests “How can this be” as very close (literally). However, the shall might be implied by the fact that the subject refers to everything the angel said, which an interpreter takes as a command of sorts – but does so by ignoring that the action is represented as having already taken place.

It is interesting that the translation suggests Mary could already believe what the angel has said, while at the same time asking how it happened. The translators are essentially denying the already happened aspect because the sentence is a question (HOW).
 
1Cori 7:9 ει δε ουκ εγκρατευονται γαμησατωσαν

if (but) not “egkrateuo-n-tai”, “GamE - sa - tW - san”

εγκρατευο - ν - ται = control – present, plural, perfect middle/passive.

The verb for control is in the middle, so control themselves would be appropriate as the subject is implied.

γαμη - σα - τω - σαν = Marry! ( plural 3rd imperative )

This is a command (imperative) in the third person –
which is translated with should, ought, or other english equivalents.

The translation means they OUGHT to marry.

And the reason – FOR – it is mightier to marry than to burn up.
The pun on hell is probably intentional – with fire.

Hope that helps. 🙂
 
1Cori 7:9 ?? ?? ??? ??? ???

if (but) not “egkrateuo-n-tai”, “GamE - sa - tW - san”

??? - ? - ??? = control – present, plural, perfect middle/passive.

The verb for control is in the middle, so control themselves would be appropriate as the subject is implied.

??? - ?? - ?? - ??? = Marry! ( plural 3rd imperative )

This is a command (imperative) in the third person –
which is translated with should, ought, or other english equivalents.

The translation means they OUGHT to marry.

And the reason – FOR – it is mightier to marry than to burn up.
The pun on hell is probably intentional – with fire.

Hope that helps. 🙂
Interesting “lexicalysis” of the independent clause, but my essential question revolved around the dependent clause; to wit, what is the corrext verbage: “if they cannot control themselves” or “if they do not control themselves”?
 
Let’s take apart the sentence in Luke 1:34.

Luke 1:34 ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???

said ( ??, but) MARIAM (???) to the angel (???)

??? ---- HOW / in what manner
??-??? - be – perfect middle/passive.
??? - THIS (as subject, aka “nominative” )
??? - SINCE
??? - ? – MALE (collective as new subject, aka. “nominative” )
?? - short form of ouk – NOT
??? - ? – “I am knowing” – present/fut and indicative active

The verb you are asking about is ??? (estai) – the tai on the end tells us that the verb is in the perfect middle (or passive) form. The same ending is used for middle or passive verbs so you have to guess which is meant from the context.

If taken as a middle verb, the subject does the action for its own interest. That would mean “this” is being for itself somehow.
If taken as passive, the subject of the sentence has the action done to it. Being is happening to “this”.
Both amount to the same thing, the proclamation of the angel has happened and possibly for a reason associated with what the angel said.

Tag onto that the question “How” or “in what way” and the idea is complete.

Literally, Mary is asking “In what way IS this now and to continue”
which is a very awkward translation.

The only other verb in the sentence “I am knowing” talks about now and the future, so it suggests the same thing.

Generally one translates “Shall”, “Ought”, words which are in the imperative – so really the translation is more of “can” since the imperative is not present, which suggests “How can this be” as very close (literally). However, the shall might be implied by the fact that the subject refers to everything the angel said, which an interpreter takes as a command of sorts – but does so by ignoring that the action is represented as having already taken place.

It is interesting that the translation suggests Mary could already believe what the angel has said, while at the same time asking how it happened. The translators are essentially denying the already happened aspect because the sentence is a question (HOW).
Perhaps I’m dense, but this is still not clear. How to translate “estai”: how shall this be", or “how can this be”; that’s all I’d like to know.
 
I’m sorry if I miffed you somehow!

There is no such thing as a perfect translation, especially since there are no auxiliary verbs (as you call them) in these Greek passages. Sometimes there is not an exact (correct) English translation.

I already answered Luke:
The literal translation was “In what way is this now and to continue”

Therefore, of the choices given by you, I said:
“How CAN this be” is a valid translation, with the caveat that Mary is NOT expressing a doubt.

The passage in Corinthians is not clear cut.
The verb has a range of meaning since it is present perfect:
That means the action started in the past, was completed then, and has ramifications now.

The literal translations are:
If NOT they-have-controlled-themselves, they ought to marry. (middle)
If NOT they-have-been-controlled, they ought to marry. (passive)

Neither CAN NOT nor DO NOT accurately reflect the entire meaning in English.

I think a better translation would be:
If they have not controlled themselves, they ought to marry.
 
I’m sorry if I miffed you somehow!

There is no such thing as a perfect translation, especially since there are no auxiliary verbs (as you call them) in these Greek passages. Sometimes there is not an exact (correct) English translation.

I already answered Luke:
The literal translation was “In what way is this now and to continue”

Therefore, of the choices given by you, I said:
“How CAN this be” is a valid translation, with the caveat that Mary is NOT expressing a doubt.

The passage in Corinthians is not clear cut.
The verb has a range of meaning since it is present perfect:
That means the action started in the past, was completed then, and has ramifications now.

The literal translations are:
If NOT they-have-controlled-themselves, they ought to marry. (middle)
If NOT they-have-been-controlled, they ought to marry. (passive)

Neither CAN NOT nor DO NOT accurately reflect the entire meaning in English.

I think a better translation would be:
If they have not controlled themselves, they ought to marry.
No, I wasn’t “miffed”, just confused by all the syntactical and sensical technicalities, which, after all is said and done, seem to allow for either “How shall this be” or “How can this be”, and for either “If they do not contain themselves” or “If they cannot contain themselves”.

In English, “shall” implies what I call a “future certainty”, while “can” implies merely the potential, that something will occur. As for “do not contain” vs “cannot contain”: the latter implies a lack of potential, while the former implies the potential is there, but the realization is not.
 
🙂

Yes, I agree – however when all is said and done, a translation usually trades one set of ambiguities for another.

If “How shall this be” is the preferred translation, then in English that implies nothing about the present – and so we loose the faithfulness of Mary’s statement.

How can this be? is ambiguous in that we don’t know whether Mary believes or not, or what time frame she is speaking of – Past, Present, or Future. But at least it COULD properly translate the Greek.

It would not be a surprise to see an investigator looking at what appears to be a murder victim and say - “how can this be” - not because they disbelieve the murder happened, nor because they believe the murder might potentially happen (to the same victim), but because they don’t understand a relationship between events which have already occurred.

Part of the problem is that, since people tend to use verbs which are merely sufficient to get their meaning across, rather than precision verbs which say only everything that can be rightly said – 🙂 – the translator is always trading one set of ambiguities for another.

The rest of the problem is style.

“How be this, as I am not knowing man” communicates that Mary didn’t know how to speak proper English, and is perhaps uneducated – mental – etc (Or perhaps the author is… 🙂 )

Take a look at the passage from Corinthians again.
Notice the Greek has a nasty implication about it:

In St. Paul’s view, one meaning of the Greek is that one ought ( should? ) marry only if a lack of control (a sin?) was involved at some time.

but St. Paul does not believe marriage to be sinful – it is in fact the mystery of Christ and the church. Nor, since fecund activity is the subject of the passage could sexual activity be sinful in and of itself. The ambiguity of that passage is such that it needs to be very carefully stated, otherwise even Christ himself will be condemned of sin since he ‘marries’ the church on the cross.

Think about it. 🙂
 
OK; Look: Haydock has this to say re 1 Cor. 7:7-9 -

Ver. 7-8. I would, or I could wish you all were even as myself, and as it is said in the next verse, to continue unmarried as I do. From hence it is evident, that St. Paul was not then married, who according to the opinion of the ancient fathers, was never married. But when the apostle says, I would this as to you all, he only signifies what could be wished for, the particular good of every one considered as a particular person, but what cannot be hoped for, considering the state of mankind in general, and the temptations, and frailty of men. — But every one hath his proper gift from God, so that some prudently embrace a single life, and also make a religious vow of always living so, as it has been practised by a great number both of men and women in all ages, ever since Christ’s time. Others have not this more perfect gift: they find themselves not disposed to lead, or vow a single life, they marry lawfully: it is better to marry than to burn, or be burnt by violent temptations of concupiscence, by which they do not contain themselves from disorders of that kind. It is against both the Latin and Greek text to translate, they cannot contain themselves, as in the Protestant and Mr. N…'s translation. Dr. Wells, in his paraphrase, gives the sense of this place in these words: The inconveniences of marriage are to be undergone, rather than such sinful imaginations, or practises, as arise from the flames of an ungovernable lust. They therefore that are unmarried or widows, (to whom St. Paul speaks in these two verses) may have recourse to marriage as a remedy. But let it be observed, that when St. Paul allows of marriage, he speaks not of those who have already made a vow of living always a single life. Vows made to God must be kept. (Psalm lxxv. 12.; Ecclesiastes v. 3.) And St. Paul expressly says of such persons, who have made a vow of perpetual continency, and afterwards marry, that they incur damnation, because they violate their first faith, or vow made to God. See 1 Timothy v. 12. This saying, therefore, it is better to marry than to burn, cannot justify the sacrilegious marriages of priests, or of any others who were under such vows. There are other remedies which they are bound to make use of, and by which they may obtain the gift of continency and chastity. They must ask this gift by fervent prayers to God, who give a good spirit to them that ask it. (Luke xi. 15.) They must join fasting, alms, and the practice of self-denials, so often recommended in the gospel. See the annotations on Matthew xix. The like remedies, and not others, must they use, who being already in wedlock, are under such violent temptations, that they are continually in danger of violating, or do violate the chastity of the marriage-bed. For example, when married persons are divorced from bed and board, when long absent from one another, when sick and disabled, when one has an inveterate aversion to the other: they cannot marry another, but they can, and must use other remedies. (Witham)

Ver. 9. If they do not contain. This is spoken of such as are free; and not of such as by vow have given their first faith to God; to whom, if they will use proper means to obtain it, God will never refuse the gift of continency. Some translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, if they cannot contain. (Challoner)

Re Luke 1:34 -

Ver. 34. How shall this be done? She only asks about the manner. — Because I know not man.[6] This answer, as St. Augustine takes notice, would have been to no purpose, had she not made a vow to God to live always a virgin. (Witham) — Listen to the words of this pure Virgin. The angel tells her she shall conceive; but she insists upon her virginity, holding her purity in higher estimation than the promised dignity. (St. Gregory of Nyssa.) — She did not doubt the truth of what the angel said, (as Calvin impiously maintained) but she wished it might not happen to the prejudice of her vowed virginity. (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Ven. Bede, Theophylactus, &c. &c.)

Interesting, that not only the D-R, but also the Protestant American Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible all translated these passages the same. The RSV-CE, the NAB, the JB, the NJB each took the other renderings: “How can”, “If they cannot”.
 
The verb you are asking about is εσται (estai) – the tai on the end tells us that the verb is in the perfect middle (or passive) form.
You’re wrong. There is no passive or middle for the verb “to be,” for one thing. estai is the future indicative active: Πως εσται means literally, “How will this be?”

Or one could translate it, “How is this going to happen?”

Edwin
 
You’re wrong. There is no passive or middle for the verb “to be,” for one thing. estai is the future indicative active: Πως εσται means literally, “How will this be?”

Or one could translate it, “How is this going to happen?”

Edwin
You’re right. αιμι – I AM – isn’t a regular ω verb, it’s μι form,
and totally irregular even there – it breaks all normal patterns.

Thanks.

I should never have missed that – I’m just so used to ται signaling the middle/passive in μι verbs that I forgot αιμι was irregular.
 
It is against both the Latin and Greek text to translate, they cannot contain themselves, as in the Protestant and Mr. N…'s translation. Dr. Wells, in his paraphrase, gives the sense of this place in these words: The inconveniences of marriage are to be undergone, rather than such sinful imaginations, or practises, as arise from the flames of an ungovernable lust.
Yes, you’ll note I used an awkward synonym – control. Contain ( as a cognate of continence?) does not fully express the range of sin that one could avoid by marriage. Lust can be an incoming sin, as viewed through the eyes and felt in the heart,
with no substance leaving the body – But one still burns.
The will is involved in lust – hence DO not contain (in the heart?) might be appropriate, but what of possesion, mental disorder, or simply overwhelming passion, or even simply being lonely.

None of these have consent, all lack control.

However, not even my translational word is sufficient – or perhaps St. Paul is just so ambiguous its a rorshak pattern.

But, a person certainly could have the weakness of concupiscence – without lust. Although that person might realize that their passion is not under control, and that their body is ‘wandering’ from their will. (Sin without guilt?)

There is no act that a merely concupiscent person has yet done ( DO ) that is against continence. For this reason, I find Douay’s choice of – “do not contain themselves” – to overstate the case.
( Not to mention, the first time I read that I thought – “but I am in my body, and my body is in me – that’s true of everyone.” )

But more fundamentally, the Corinthans verb is also passive in the Greek, which would mean to be controlled/contained from without – rather than from within. Being made/born a eunuch by the gift of God. (No contraceptive jokes, please, ergo. contain/control)

The grace of marriage is something that God can call a person to by slowly withdrawing the ability for continence. The easter creed says, “Oh necessary sin of Adam which gained for us so great a redeemer.” That’s the marriage feast in heaven, when no one will marry any more.

On a side note, priests may be dispensed from rash vows by the bishops permission. They remain a priest, but are allowed to mary – without sin. Douay / Challoner doesn’t appear to notice some exceptions to the rules – either.
 
You’re wrong. There is no passive or middle for the verb “to be,” for one thing. estai is the future indicative active: ??? ??? means literally, “How will this be?”

Or one could translate it, “How is this going to happen?”

Edwin
Edwin,

THANK YOU!

Now, would you mind commenting on the “do not / cannot” issue in 1 Cor. 7:9?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top