SFRAGIZW: middle or passive?
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Oct 19 07:59:01 EDT 2002
At 9:28 AM +0300 10/19/02, Iver Larsen wrote:
>Carl mentioned that he would interpret the MP form of this verb in Eph 1:13
>as middle in sense.
>I deleted the post, but now I'd like to address this question, because I
>think there is a general grammatical point.
Here's what I actually wrote, if memory needs refreshing:
At 12:16 PM -0400 10/18/02, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>I can't resist a little demurrer here: granted that ESFRAGISQHTE is usually
>termed "passive" in terms of its "morphoparadigm," I've argued that we
>ought normally to view the -QH- forms in aorist and future as MP forms in
>process of replacing older aorists in -SAMHN and futures in -SOMAI. So I
>would consider ESFRAGISQHTE indeed as a "middle"--but there's no need to
>refer to this as having an "active" sense: the middle quite commonly may
>bear the sense "let something be done to oneself" or "have something done
>to or for oneself."
>--
>If I understand Carl correctly, he is normally looking for an explicit agent
>or means for an MP form to be interpreted as passive. Whereas I agree with
>this, I think one also should look at the verb in question and check how it
>is normally construed. What are the usual semantic arguments attached to it?
>The agent or means may well be implicit rather than explicit for various
>reasons, and if so, the MP form could well be passive.
I don't really disagree with Iver on this either, and although I really
think the notion of a "divine passive" is a fuzzy, murky, and questionable
one, I do think that there are instances where an MP morphoparadigm must
surely be understood as semantically passive rather than middle even
without an indication of agent. One of these is Rom 9:22 ... SKEUH ORGHS
KATHRTISMENA EIS APWLEIAN, where KATHRTISMENA might theoretically be
considered middle but in the context can only be considered passive.
And, although it may seem like quibbling to some, I think something more
needs to be said here: while I would not dispute that it is God who has
sealed believers with the Spirit and in that sense ESFRAGISQHTE in Eph 1:13
may be interpreted as a passive with God as the implicit agent. However,
the peculiar ambivalent nature of the middle-passive morphoparadigms lays
the focus of discourse upon what is happening to the subject rather than
upon the agent who brings that happening to fruition. And that is why I
would still be inclined to understand ESFRAGISQHTE in Eph 1:13 as middle in
the sense: "You had yourselves sealed with the promised Holy Spirit." Did
the believers do the sealing? No. Did they submit themselves to it? Surely.
Does the verb-form underscore the involvement of the subject any more or
less than the agency of God? For my part I don't think so. And here
precisely is my point: it seems to me that ancient Greek never did develop
a morphoparadigm that clearly distinguished semantic passive sense from
semantic middle sense, NOT EVEN IN THE AORIST AND FUTURE. Greeks were
content, I believe, to indicate with these MP forms that the focus of
verbal action rested upon the subject; they were not ordinarily concerned
with indicating "whodunnit" and either left that to what context implies or
made it explicit with an agent construction.
With regard to Eph 1:13 it doesn't really matter that much to me whether or
not the interpreter insists on understanding ESFRAGISQHTE as semantically
passive or middle, or translates it "you were sealed" or "you had
yourselves sealed." I rather think that this is another of those instances
where grammatical or even theological concerns of the translator struggling
with the question of how to represent the Greek in the target language
confronts a Greek construction that usually does not provide the clear
markers to assist the hERMHNEUTHS. It is like the troublesome structural
genitive construed with a verbal noun where we want to know whether it's a
"subjective" or "objective" genitive: it's clear that the Greek
speaker/writer understood what he/she was saying/writing, but he/she didn't
bother to make it clear for the hERMHNEUTHS.
It seems to me that BAPTIZW is a verb much like SFRAGIZW: a transitive verb
indicating an action performed by one person upon another or others. But
what shall we say of the MP participle BAPTIZOMENOI in the celebrated,
less-than-perspicuous passage, 1 Cor 15:29:
EPEI TI POIHSOUSIN hOI BAPTIZOMENOI hUPER TWN NEKRWN
However the ritual practice referred to in this verse may be understood,
two things are pretty clear: (1) the persons referred to as hOI
BAPTIZOMENOI almost surely don't dunk themselves; (2) nevertheless these
persons undergo baptism intentionally and for a particular purpose. I
rather think that hOI ESFRAGISMENOI of Eph 1:13 are comparable: they didn't
seal themselves, but they intended to undergo this sealing.
>Let me look at the GNT occurrences of this verb. There are 15.
>
>Of these, 7 are active. One is in Matt 27:66 where the chief priests sealed
>the stone on the tomb of Jesus. Two are in John. In 3:33 it is the person
>who believes who by this certifies or puts his stamp of approval on God as
>truthful. In 6:27 it is God the Father who has put his stamp of approval on
>the Son of Man. I think this refers to the Spirit descending on Jesus as a
>dove, plus the words spoken on that occasion. The remaining four are in
>revelation (7:3, 10:4, 20:3, 22:10).
>
>2 occurrences are marked as middle by the Friberg tags, both in Paul. They
>are
>
>Rom 15:28 TOUTO OUN EPITELESAS KAI SFRAGISAMENOS AUTOIS TON KARPON TOUTON
>(NIV: So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have
>received this fruit.)
>On this passage, BAGD says: "Ro 15:28 is perh. to be understood fr. the
>practice of sealing sacks of grain (Dssm., NB 65f [BS 238f]). But the figure
>is perh. rather hard to maintain, since the 'fruit' must not only be sealed,
>but also forwarded to Jerusalem and delivered there. In any case the sense
>of the expr. is easier to understand in some such wording as this: when I
>have placed the sum that was collected safely (sealed) in their hands."
>This appears to be an idiomatic, special use that we don't need to look at
>as a parallel to the use in Eph 1:13.
>
>2 Cor 1:21-2 hO DE BEBAIWN hHMAS SUN hUMIN EIS CRISTON KAI CRISAS hHMAS
>QEOS, hO KAI SFRAGISAMENOS hHMAS KAI DOUS TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS EN TAIS
>KARDIAIS hHMWN
>
>In this passage we have a construction where God puts a seal on believers by
>means of the ARRABWN of the Spirit, and it is parallel in thought to Eph
>1:13. I assume it is middle because God is sealing the believers as his
>property and for his own benefit. It is parallel in thought but logically
>consequential and additional to CRISAS hHMAS QEOS just preceding it.
>
>The last six occurrences are marked as passive in the Friberg tags. I am
>here giving the references and the RSV translation:
>
>Eph 1:13: you ... were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit
>Eph 4:30: do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in(with) whom you were
>sealed
>
>Rev 7:4(twice): I heard the number of the sealed (lit: the ones having been
>sealed)
>Rev 7:5 and 7:8: sealed (lit: the ones having been sealed) as above.
>
>The uses of this verb that is relevant to Eph 1:13 all have God as agent,
>the believers as patients (semantic objects) and the Holy Spirit as means or
>instrument. God seals believers in/by/with the Spirit. So, when the
>believers grammatically change from object to subject, it seems to me that
>the verb must be understood as passive, as in Eph 1:13, with God as the
>implied agent. A middle interpretation would require God as subject, not the
>believers, as in 2 Cor 1:22.
>
>Iver Larsen
>
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
--
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.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list