Matth.24:7&11
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Mon Dec 9 06:10:36 EST 2002
On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 12:05 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Iver:
>>
>> There is contextual, albeit a wider context, support for the idea that
>> these supposedly MP forms should be taken passively. 2 Thess 2:11
>> indicates that it is God who causes a strong delusion to come upon
>> them
>> so that they would believe a lie.
>>
>> If EGERQHSONTAI of Mt 24:24 is taken passively, it does not follow
>> that
>> God is intending to deceive the elect, but that it may not be
>> possible.
>> Rather, the intent to deceive comes from the near YEUDOCRISTOI KAI
>> YEUDOPROFHTAI.
>
> Yes, I accept that my response was rather quick and probably not clear
> on
> the main point I had in mind.
> It is better to check all the occurrences of EGEIRW, and we addressed
> this
> in the discussions last year. There are many so-called passive forms
> of this
> and other verbs that in context cannot be interpreted as passive in the
> English sense of passive. So, my point is that we should not start off
> with
> the assumption that all passive (MP2) forms of a Greek verb
> necessarily have
> a passive sense. Many of them are better understood as middle.
> However, some
> of them could well be interpreted as passive, just as some MP1 forms
> could
> be understood as passive in sense, depending on context and how this
> particular verb is normally used.
>
> For many verbs in the MP forms the distinction between passive and
> middle is
> not important in the Greek. If a person rises up, it is often not
> specified
> whether the grammatical subject is the agent/cause as well as
> experiencer
> (rise) or whether the agent is different from the experiencer (be
> raised).
> What the MP verb tells us is that the person is now raised up or has
> risen,
> not what or who caused it. The problem we have in translation is that
> when
> an English passive is used, it usually indicates that the agent is
> different
> from the experiencer. That is why a passive in English is sometimes an
> inaccurate translation of the passive in Greek. These grammatical
> categories
> do not match across language boundaries.
I must admit at the start that, for various reasons, I did not want to
get involved in this discussion of middle vs. passive in relation to
the -QH- morphoparadigm. But I am fresh off the Packers' win over
Minnesota and, must admit, have had a few Jagermeisters, so I am
somewhat pumped-up. (Sorry, all you fundamentalists. I am a Baptist,
but have never claimed to be John the Baptist.)
I have kept an open mind for quite some time to the idea that the -QH-
verbs should be considered MP, and especially M unless accompanied by a
modifier that explicitly indicates an agent (e.g., hUPO with the
genitive). But I think the time has come to challenge this view. As I
have been reading through the NT and taking special note of the -QH-
verbs, I have come to the tentative conclusion that such verbs, whether
with or without an expressed agent, should be taken as passive by
default unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. I think an
exhaustive, annotated study of *all* the -QH- verbs is necessary to
solve this problem. I hope to do such a study soon. At the very least,
I think convincing answers to the following questions/objections need
to be forthcoming:
(1) The idea that the -QH- morphoparadigm represents for the most part
passive verbs is quite long-standing. When and how was the
understanding that the -QH- morphoparadigm indicated middle-passive
rather than passive lost? My question has to do with the total
historical eclipse of understanding of a Greek morphoparadigm and when
and how it happened. This is not akin to such a misunderstanding as the
"punctiliar" view of the aorist, which has pretty much come and gone
within a century. We are talking here about a fundamental
misunderstanding that has presumably held sway for hundreds of, if not
a couple thousand, years, and has only recently been "corrected." How
did such a fundamental blunder come about and flourish for so long? I
don't know if the proponents of the "new perspective" on the -QH-
morphoparadigm have considered this or not, but if this "new
perspective" is accepted, then we must squarely face the reality that
much of our understanding of the NT has been wrong for centuries. So
the stakes are high, whether or not the proponents of the "new
perspective" have considered this or not. The repercussions go far
beyond the borders of grammar and syntax.
(2) Though those who propose that the -QH- morphoparadigm may or should
be understood as middle unless accompanied by an explicit agent may
deny this, much of their evidence seems to be predicated on whether or
not a -QH- form is easily translated into English as a passive. Note
well Iver's comments above:
" There are many so-called passive forms of this and other verbs that
in context cannot be interpreted as passive in the English sense of
passive."
"The problem we have in translation is that when an English passive is
used, it usually indicates that the agent is different from the
experiencer. That is why a passive in English is sometimes an
inaccurate translation of the passive in Greek. These grammatical
categories do not match across language boundaries."
While I understand and sympathize with the burden of translators, we
must always distinguish between the Greek idiom and that which is
understandable or preferable in English. Just because the grammar check
in Word 2000 may reject *our* use of the passive does not mean that
such a use is unacceptable in Hellenistic Greek idiom. Yet this seems
to be a constant underlying misconception in this discussion. It is
simply not enough to argue that because a passive sense in English is
"unnatural" that a verb in Greek is therefore not passive, and
understood as passive in the Greek idiom. I demand evidence that the
passive is unacceptable in the Greek idiom.
(3) There seems constantly to be an argument set forth from what can
legitimately be labeled as exceptions. It is not enough—at least for
me—to argue that, since a relatively few verbs in the -QH-
morphoparadigm should be understood as middle, that *all* verbs in the
-QH- morphoparadigm may or should be considered middle unless
accompanied by an explicit agent. I think that the majority of uses of
the -QH- verbs indicates that these verbs should be considered passive
by default unless proven otherwise. I think it is a methodological
monstrosity to argue from the few to the many.
(4) According to most authorities, the nuances associated with the
middle voice are all but dying out during the period in which the NT
was written. This is understandable in light of the fact that "the
subtleties of a language that could easily be mastered by native
speakers tend to fall away when that language is learned by
non-natives" (Wallace). Yet if we are to accept the "new perspective,"
the middle is not only alive and well, but capable of expressing
nuances never before thought possible. Take a few of our recent
discussions on B-Greek:
When we discussed ESFRAGISQHTE in Ephesians 1.13, we were told that it
could very well mean "you allowed yourselves to be sealed" or "you
submitted to be sealed" or the like. Yet this is very much more nuanced
that taking ESFRAGISQHTE as a simple passive. If anyone cares, I think
it is obvious from the context that it should be taken as passive. I
think that, among other things, some stylistic considerations were
overlooked. At any rate, this interpretation demands a highly nuanced
middle sense.
Or how about our recent discussion of hEUREQHN in Romans 10.20? It was
suggested that hEUREQHN was not passive at all, but rather meant "I
revealed myself." Considering the basic lexical meaning of hEURISKW is
"find," this entails the idea of "finding myself out to." A long way to
go considering the passive is readily understandable. And it is not as
if there is no middle sense to go by. In Hebrews 9.12 hEURAMENOS seems
to mean "obtained." This is a natural extension of the lexeme "to
find," while it is hard to see how "reveal myself" is in any way
natural even in a middle sense, especially when it is contrasted with
TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN ("those who did not seek me"). When we take into
consideration that Paul purposely rearranged the LXX wording so that
there is a play on the words "find" and "seek," it seems obvious that
the sense is, "I was found by those who did not seek me." Again, though
Word 2000 may not like this, it does not mean that it is unnatural
Greek.
I have not seen much of a challenge to the "new perspective." But in
the limited time I have, I hope to provide at least some dissent to a
view that seems, for the most part, to be going unchallenged on B-Greek.
=============
Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list