Matth.24:7&11
Paul Dixon
dixonps at juno.com
Mon Dec 9 19:18:38 EST 2002
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 05:10:36 -0600 Steven Lo Vullo <slovullo at mac.com>
writes:
> 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 enoughat least for
>
> meto 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.
Thanks, Steven. Your dissension is well reasoned. It does seem huge
blind steps have been taken if we conclude that the long-standing passive
understanding of the -QH- morphoparadigm may not be passive after all,
and that it might better be rendered in the active or middle voice in the
English.
A comprehensive study of the -QH- morphoparadigm in the NT and LXX would
be very interesting and telling. I'd be happy to assist you in that
endeavor, if you'd
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list