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 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.

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