SFRAGIZW: middle or passive?
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Oct 19 12:57:58 EDT 2002
Thanks, Carl, for clarifying your thinking for me. We have discussed the
function of the MP forms before, and I won't repeat a lot. Just a few
comments below.
[Carl:] 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.
I would not consider Eph 1:13 an example of the so-called "divine passive",
but just an ordinary passive. Semantically speaking, the function of a
passive is to put the agent out of focus, either 1) because he is not known,
2) because the readers already know who the agent is or 3) because the
writer simply wants to get the agent out of focus in order to put relatively
more focus on the action or the other participants. The "divine passive" is
a fourth option used by Hebrew speakers or thinkers where the writer/speaker
wants to avoid mentioning the name of God in a construction where one would
normally expect God as the explicit agent. One can, of course, also used
substitutes like "the Name" or many others. In Eph 1:13, I think the passive
is used because of 2) and 3), and not because of 4).
>
> 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.
This is where I don't quite agree. I just don't see that "subject-focus" is
an adequate description of the semantic middle. We agree that the
morphological MP forms can be semantically middle or passive, dependent on
context, and I agree with Friberg than in Eph 1:13 it is semantically
passive, not middle. The complex "You had yourselves sealed" is in my
understanding a causative derivation of a passive, and not a semantic
middle. One does not seal oneself, and to submit to being sealed implies an
agent that is different from the experiencer. A proper middle sense would be
something like "God sealed you for his benefit" as used in
> >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.
I think it would yield a more adequate description of the semantic middle to
explain it in terms of semantic roles. The traditional brief - and somewhat
inadequate - explanation of middle is that the action is done for the
benefit of the subject. In semantic terms, this means that the grammatical
subject expresses simultaneously an agent role and beneficiary role. It
could also be a simultaneous agent and experiencer role. For instance, in
the action of walking, the person walking is both the agent (the one moving
the legs) and the experiencer or even beneficiary (the one who experiences
or benefits from the move). Such verbs are middle in Greek and active in
English.
To develop a full description of Greek middle in terms of semantic roles
would take more time than I have at the moment, and it could not be
adequately done in a short e-mail. I did make more detailed statements on
the list on Oct 27 and 29, 2001. There was considerable discussion on this a
year ago, and a search for "middle" in the subject line should give most of
the postings. Maybe someone who is familiar with semantics would like to
take this up as a research project? It needs more time than just a few
minutes writing an e-mail.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list