Middle or passive (Was: Matth.24:7&11)
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Dec 9 12:05:44 EST 2002
Hi Steven,
I am not sure if you are directing your post to me or some one else, but let
me make a few comments, and let some one else comment further.
<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).
It seems that you are oversimplifying and overstating your opponents'
position. At least, both Carl and I agree that an MP form in some contexts
must be understood as passive, even if there is no explicit agent, e.g. with
hUPO. He may be leaning more towards "middle" and I more towards "passive"
in such cases. I think we agree that in many contexts, the distinction
between Greek middle and passive is not as clear-cut as an appeal to English
active and passive would suggest.
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:
<snip>
> (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.
I am afraid I do not understood what your point is here. The term "passive"
is a syntactic term, not a semantic one, and therefore it needs to be
defined within each particular language. It is often assumed that a Greek
MP2 form in principle corresponds to an English passive. I don't think we
should start out with such an assumption. Nor should we assume that it does
NOT correspond to an English passive. My approach is to look at how the verb
in question is used in terms of its basic, MP1 and MP2 forms, and look at
the semantic roles in context.
>
> (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.
When exceptions occur, and when they are quite numerous, you need to revise
your hypothesis in order to explain the exceptions. Traditional Greek
grammar does not do this, nor is the term deponent helpful, since it gives a
label, but no reason or adequate description of what is going on.
>
> (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).
Is this a generally accepted statement? I don't know, but it looks like an
overstatement to me.
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.
This is one case where I argued for a definite passive from the use of this
verb in other places. Although Carl was reluctant to give up the possibility
of it being middle, he did say that it "was more passive than middle." So I
agree with you on this one being passive, not middle.
>
> 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 agree with you on this one, too, as you can see from my brief postings on
the subject.
> 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.
Great. Challenges help us towards a better and hopefully more accurate
understanding of a complex issue.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list