Matth.24:7&11
Peter Kirk
prkirk at pmbx.net
Mon Dec 9 08:26:02 EST 2002
As a new member of this list, I am not aware of all of the background to
this discussion, but that may actually help me to make a balanced
contribution. I am attempting to do so using my linguistic rather than
my theological background.
Steven makes a good point that the issue should be examined on the basis
of the Greek use of the passive rather than the English one. But there
is also a danger of tautology in this argument: the Greek "passive"
forms with -QH- are used as the Greek passive is used, by definition. To
put it another way, if a -QH- "passive" is used in a Greek text, it must
be acceptable Greek idiom, but that doesn't tell us what it means. The
real question which must be answered is, how does the Greek use of the
-QH- "passive" differ from the normal or canonical use of the passive as
recognised by linguists - which is very likely based on English or Latin
usage but is not defined as the English usage. If there is any such
difference, it is relevant not only for translation but also for proper
understanding of the Greek text.
The question seems to be a rather simple one. In English (mentioned only
for comparison purposes) we can write:
1. X hit Y
2. (Y hit Y) => Y hit him/herself
3. Y was hit by X
4. Y was hit
Does 4. exclude the possibility that Y hit him/herself? That is
debatable. I don't think it would ever be used where the agent is known,
but possibly where the agent is unknown e.g. a police report "Y was shot
in the head" would not be taken as ruling out suicide.
Similarly in Greek (and assuming an aorist or future verb) we have the
four equivalent possibilities, active with direct object, active with
hEAUTON/-HN, -QH- "passive" with expressed agent, and -QH- "passive"
with no expressed agent; plus a distinct middle form. The question we
must ask is, does the Greek version of 4. exclude the possibility that Y
hit him/herself? It seems unlikely to do so completely. But does it
allow this possibility more freely than the English form e.g. even in
cases where the agency is known to be reflexive? This is surely
something which we can test unambiguously, and in theologically
uncontroversial texts, within the New Testament and the wider corpus of
Hellenistic literature.
Some examples which we might need to consider, where there doesn't
appear to be a separate agent, and these are just from Matthew (I have
excluded well known deponent forms, also my simple search for *QH* omits
some forms e.g. participles):
11:6 cf. 15:12, 24:10, 26:31,33 SKANDALISQH (or does EN EMOI mark the
agent? - but then "be offended" in English doesn't require an agent)
12:26 EMERISQH
13:2, 22:34, 26:3,57, 27:62 SUNHCQHSAN and especially 24:28
SUNACQHSONTAI
17:23, 18:31 ELUPHQHSAN
18:12 PLANHQH
19:5 KOLLHQHSETAI
21:10 ESEISQH
25:7 HGERQHSAN
Peter Kirk
(member 1992-2002 of Wycliffe Bible Translators UK and SIL North Eurasia
Group, recently resigned and currently living temporarily in Australia)
peter.r.kirk at ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Lo Vullo [mailto:slovullo at mac.com]
> Sent: 09 December 2002 22:11
> To: Biblical Greek
> Cc: Biblical Greek
> Subject: [b-greek] RE: Matth.24:7&11
>
<snip>
>
> 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