πορεύθητι and πορεύου Acts 9:11 & 15

[Stephen Hughes]

Any clue why Luke would use these two forms in such close proximity?

Ὁ δὲ κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν, Ἀναστὰς πορεύθητι ἐπὶ τὴν ῥύμην τὴν καλουμένην Εὐθεῖαν, καὶ ζήτησον ἐν οἰκίᾳ Ἰούδα Σαῦλον ὀνόματι, Ταρσέα· ἰδοὺ γὰρ προσεύχεται,

Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος, Πορεύου, ὅτι σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς μοι ἐστὶν οὗτος, τοῦ βαστάσαι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐνώπιον ἐθνῶν καὶ βασιλέων, υἱῶν τε Ἰσραήλ·

[cwconrad]

Any clue why Luke would use these two forms in such close proximity?

Ὁ δὲ κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν, Ἀναστὰς πορεύθητι ἐπὶ τὴν ῥύμην τὴν καλουμένην Εὐθεῖαν, καὶ ζήτησον ἐν οἰκίᾳ Ἰούδα Σαῦλον ὀνόματι, Ταρσέα· ἰδοὺ γὰρ προσεύχεται,

Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος, Πορεύου, ὅτι σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς μοι ἐστὶν οὗτος, τοῦ βαστάσαι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐνώπιον ἐθνῶν καὶ βασιλέων, υἱῶν τε Ἰσραήλ·

One might argue that this is another instance of rhetorical variatio, comparable to the alternations between ἀγαπὰν and φιλεῖν, βόσκειν and ποιμαίνειν, ποιμνή and πρόβατα in Jn 21, but I think it's more likely that the aorist imperative πορεύθητι in verse 11 better reflects the "wholeness" of the instruction: Ananias is told to "make your way to this particular destination and carry out this particular act. Ananias protests; he doesn't think this is a wise thing to do. Then he is told, "Get started on the road -- (I do know what I'm doing!"

[Girgis Boshra]

both the two verbs are imperative, but the first (πορεύθητι) in aorsit because the lord wants him to do specific action, and the second in present for the lord describes to Ananias a general matter, that Paul will be (σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς (Act 9:15))

[Stephen Hughes]

both the two verbs are imperative, but the first (πορεύθητι) in aorsit because the lord wants him to do specific action, and the second in present for the lord describes to Ananias a general matter, that Paul will be (σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς (Act 9:15))

It seems that you are taking the aspect of the imperative to refer to nature of the result or consequence of the action of the imperative, rather than the nature of the action of the verb that is being commanded to be carried out. Is that your own thinking or something you have learnt from a book or in a class?

[Girgis Boshra]

Dear, Stephen Hughes
Thanks for your notes, I don’t deny the nature of the action of the verb that is being commanded to be carried out, but the tense in non indicative has a semantic function, not expressing the cosmic time, So I mean, when the lord use the present imperative the context was about specific action of the imperative (πορεύθητι ἐπὶ τὴν ῥύμην τὴν καλουμένην Εὐθεῖαν) but in using the aorist imperative the context was about general action ( Πορεύου, ὅτι σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς μοι ἐστὶν οὗτος) you can find the same usage in Mark 2:9 (Ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου) the Lord uses present imperative (Ἔγειρε) when he ordered him to raise up (and he will be always raised up for he has healed) but he used the aorist imperative (ἆρον) for this action will be for a once.

[cwconrad]

Dear, Stephen Hughes
Thanks for your notes, I don’t deny the nature of the action of the verb that is being commanded to be carried out, but the tense in non indicative has a semantic function, not expressing the cosmic time, So I mean, when the lord use the present imperative the context was about specific action of the imperative (πορεύθητι ἐπὶ τὴν ῥύμην τὴν καλουμένην Εὐθεῖαν) but in using the aorist imperative the context was about general action ( Πορεύου, ὅτι σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς μοι ἐστὶν οὗτος) you can find the same usage in Mark 2:9 (Ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου) the Lord uses present imperative (Ἔγειρε) when he ordered him to raise up (and he will be always raised up for he has healed) but he used the aorist imperative (ἆρον) for this action will be for a once.

I don't quite understand what you're arguing here. You seem to be referring to πορεύθητι as a present imperative and to πορεύου as an aorist imperative, when the truth is the reverse: πορεύου is present imperative 2 sg. and πορεύθητι is aorist imperative 2 sg. I take the sense of πορεύου as "set out on your trip" -- "start traveling" -- while the sense of πορεύθητι is indicative of the action as a whole: "You are to travel ... "

Nor do I understand the proposition that ἔγειρε has some sort of permanent implication. In Mk 2:9 the cripple is being told quite simply to get up on his feet or "start getting up" and then the aorist imperative ἆρον indicates the complete action: "pick it up!"

[Stephen Hughes]

you can find the same usage in Mark 2:9 (Ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου) the Lord uses present imperative (Ἔγειρε) when he ordered him to raise up (and he will be always raised up for he has healed) but he used the aorist imperative (ἆρον) for this action will be for a once.

Καταβάντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους , ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί·2 καὶ ἰδού, λεπρὸς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ, λέγων, Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς, δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. 3 Καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, ἥψατο αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, λέγων, Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι. Καὶ εὐθέως ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα.

Girgis Boshra: I tried following your idea through a number of chapters, but couldn't recognise the pattern of usage that you are describing. Here is another story of a healing. The man suffering from Hansen's disease uses the aorist to describe the how he understands how his skin condition will clear up. δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. Jesus uses the aorist imperative καθαρίσθητι too. The (aorist) tense is also used in other places that this story is told (Mark 1:40-42 and Luke 5:12-14). How do you understand the aorists in this story?

Carl Conrad (and/or others of the subject-affectedness faction): I have a question about middle imperatives. In your subject-affectedness model of the verb, is there is there an implication that the one issuing the command will be involved in the carrying out of the subject-affected model. I have (until now) read this story as a little "off-handed". In my English understanding at least, καθαρίσθητι comes across as somewhat uninvolved. The man suffering from the disease asks Jesus for a very personal healing, and the subject-affected imperative seems to be an impersonal (uninvolved) response. Does the Greek have any hint of a distainful feeling in this voice?

[George F Somsel]

Carl Conrad (and/or others of the subject-affectedness faction): I have a question about middle imperatives. In your subject-affectedness model of the verb, is there is there an implication that the one issuing the command will be involved in the carrying out of the subject-affected model. I have (until now) read this story as a little "off-handed". In my English understanding at least, καθαρίσθητι comes across as somewhat uninvolved. The man suffering from the disease asks Jesus for a very personal healing, and the subject-affected imperative seems to be an impersonal (uninvolved) response. Does the Greek have any hint of a distainful feeling in this voice?

I don't see why you would come to that conclusion. The man asks to be cleansed and Jesus commands that he be cleansed — the same word, different form (of course).

[Stephen Hughes]

I don't see why you would come to that conclusion. The man asks to be cleansed and Jesus commands that he be cleansed — the same word, different form (of course).

Let me answer the question "How ... ?" corresponding to your "Why ...?" question. I don't have an answer for your "Why ... ?" question, I don't have a reason for wanting it to be read in that way, it is an old query.

The passive imperative does not have the agency of a subject in it. The man was asking for Jesus direct help Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς, δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι.. The help comes expressed without the subject / agency of Jesus himself Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι. It is not expressed as καθαρίζω σε, i.e. it doesn't mirror the subject involvedness of the δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. There is nothing that the man could do for himself to fix an incurable disease, so it fits at the very edge of the spectrum of subject-affected verbs. That edge of the spectrum is where the active voice could be used, but here it is not - there is room for a choice between active and subject-affectedness under these circumstances. If that was a significant choice, then it is perhaps one to distance the one doing the curing from the process of curing.

That is how. At a broader level, it is a question about passive imperatives.

[George F Somsel]

The passive imperative does not have the agency of a subject in it. The man was asking for Jesus direct help Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς, δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι.. The help comes expressed without the subject / agency of Jesus himself Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι. It is not expressed as καθαρίζω σε, i.e. it doesn't mirror the subject involvedness of the δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. There is nothing that the man could do for himself to fix an incurable disease, so it fits at the very edge of the spectrum of subject-affected verbs. That edge of the spectrum is where the active voice could be used, but here it is not - there is room for a choice between active and subject-affectedness under these circumstances. If that was a significant choice, then it is perhaps one to distance the one doing the curing from the process of curing.

It does, however, have Jesus say "θέλω." As regards the passive imperative, some have speculated that the passive sometimes indicates divine activity. Perhaps.