Future Passives categorized (correction)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Dec 13 08:18:18 EST 2002


At 10:36 PM +1100 12/13/02, Peter Kirk wrote:
>Carl, wouldn't it be more accurate to write that you found 112 forms
>with middle sense and 177 with passive sense, including those you chose
>not to dispute?

You're right of course. When I resubmitted the message this morning after
deleting yesterday's MIME/HTML-formatted version, I added this note (which
I think goes (only) part of the way to answering your reservations):

"Totals from both lists: 289 hits, 112 MP2 forms with middle sense, 177 MP2
forms with passive sense; several of these are arguable one way or the
other; undoubtedly many will deem passive several that I have deemed
middle, but I don't think that the list of forms deemed middle can be
reduced to 0."

>Was it in fact you or Accordance which made this initial distinction
>between the two main categories?

No, Accordance gave me the 289 hits; I subdivided them initially into two
lists, the first of which included MP2 forms that I think are indisputably
passive, a second list of 120 forms that I thought might be middle; my own
analysis of those led me to the conclusion that one or two of these were
more likely passive and also that in the case of a couple verbs there were
both middle and passive usages.

>I would also suggest some methodological caution here. In several of the
>cases where you chose a middle sense, a passive sense is also very
>possible, but you have chosen what seems to you to fit the context best.
>But it is very dangerous to argue for the meaning of a word from its
>context. The most one can safely do is to argue that one possible
>meaning is ruled out by the context. In how many of your middle sense
>examples can you say that the passive sense is actually impossible,
>especially in view of the authors' theological understanding of God as
>the sovereign causer of everything? For example, the future passives of
>EGEIRW which do not refer to the resurrection of Christ refer to
>eschatological events which are clearly seen as under divine control. As
>for KOLLAW, the next verse (Mt 19:6) makes it explicit that God is the
>agent, so I think this one should be listed as passive - at least as
>understood in the context in Matthew.

I agree that methodological caution is called for; I have also readily
conceded that quite a few instances are "judgment-calls." On the matter of
theological perspectives of the authors I think some caution is also called
for, as at least some of that is a matter of interpretation. Of course you
must realize that one important aspect of my thesis is that the use of the
same morphoparadigm by Greek speakers/writers to express both middle and
passive senses indicates that the distinction was not so important to them
as it may seem to us; it may well be that HGERQH hO IHSOUS THi TRITHi
hHMERAi (obviously I'm not citing that directly from any text, but similar
wording is to be found in the GNT, I think) clearly implies the power and
sovereignty of God either in the initiative of the raising of Jesus or else
in the empowering of Jesus to rise. On the other hand, in view of the fact
that HGERQH is the aorist of EGEIROMAI in the (intransitive) sense
"awaken," and clearly enough the metaphor of sleep and waking is central to
representation of the resurrection, I ask whether HGERQH isn't simply
synonymous with ANESTH, the aorist of hISTAMAI which is also used of
awakening from sleep and of the resurrection of Jesus (as in the Easter
greeting, ANESTH hO CRISTOS--ANESTH ALHQWS!). So I'd say that, even if the
power and sovereignty of God always figure implicitly in the (credal)
formula (e.g., 1 Cor 15:4 EGHGERTAI THi hHMERAi THi TRITHi KATA TAS
GRAFAS), still an AGENT is not named explicitly unless the speaker/writer
feels it imperative to make this explicit. English is not the key here, of
course, but nevertheless, do we really mean something different when we say
"he ROSE on the third day" from what we mean when we say "he WAS RAISED on
the third day?" And I would apply the same logic to the usage of KOLLAW in
Mt 19:5-6. Yes, verse 6 says "hO OUN hO QEOS SUNEZEUXEN ANQRWPOS MH
CWRIZETW"--and this certainly does make explicit the ordinance of God
underlying the marital union, but that does not obviate, in my opinion, the
self-interested and deliberate initiative of the individual referrred to in
verse 5: KATALEIYEI ANQRWPOS TON PATERA KAI THN MHTERA KAI KOLLHQHSETAI THi
GUNAIKI AUTOU, KAI ESONTAI hOI DUO EIS SARKA MIAN. I've always thought this
referred to sexual union as something divinely sanctioned, but that doesn't
mean that the initiative in sexual union does not reside in the sexual
partners.

>Now I am not suggesting that such arguments could reduce the number of
>definite middle examples to zero. But I think it could reduce them to
>rather a small proportion. I suspect we might be nearer the mark to
>report 169 definite passives, 56 definite middles and 56 uncertain
>cases, or maybe some of the definite passives could be moved to
>uncertain as well.

I think this makes good enough sense; it is in fact one of the chief
objectives of my hypothesis and research: that interpretation of the
"middle-passive" voice morphoparadigms is just as obligatory for MP2 forms
as it always was for MP1 forms; it is not enough to do the knee-jerk thing
and say, "Oh, this -QH- form doesn't have a passive sense, so it must be a
DEPONENT VERB"--as if calling it a "deponent verb" somehow diminishes the
truth that the -QH- morphoparadigm does NOT necessarily indicate passive
meaning.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list