Difference betweem M/P in PORTRAYAL
Mark Wilson
emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 20 12:24:07 EDT 2002
Here is one reason I believe the Middle and Passive must frequently be
understood with great ambiguity, and can at times only be distinguished
if viewed from how the act/event is being PORTRAYED, just as we see
in Verbal Aspect.
Question:
Can we view at least one difference between the Middle Voice and the Passive
Voice along a time spectrum (WHEN the act is PORTRAYED)?
Let me explain (just ignore any theological assumptions, I am more so trying
to demonstrate the inherent ambiguity of how an act is PORTRAYED (sometime
quite legitimate in discussing Verbal Aspect).
Romans 9:22
EI DE QELWN hO QEOS ENDEIZASQAI THN ORGHN KAI GNWRISAI TO DUNATON AUTOU
HNEGKEN EN POLLHi MAKROQUMIAi SKEUH ORGHS KATHRTISMENA EIS APWLEIAN
NET Bible translation:
But what if God, willing to demonstrate (MIDDLE VOICE) his wrath and to make
known (ACTIVE) his power, has endured (ACTIVE) with much patience the
objects of wrath prepared (M/P) for destruction?
My take on this is that KATHRTISMENA is Middle (Contra Carl). And the reason
I take it as Middle, that is, these vessels fitted themselves for
destruction (by failing to believe), is brought out in the fact that God was
enduring with much patience. If God had unilaterally decided the fate of
these, presumably in eternity past, then how can we attribute "patience" to
this quasi determinism? The only patience God could have genuinely expressed
was BEFORE he determined their fate.
Eph. 1:13
EN Wi KAI hUMEIS AKOUSANTES (ACTIVE) TON LOGON THS ALHQEIAS, TO EUAGGELION
THS
SWTHRIAS hUMWN, EN hWi PISTEUSANTES (ACTIVE) ESFRAGISQHTE (M/P)
TWi PNEUMATI THS AGGELIAS TWi hAGIWi
Likewise I take this as Middle since the ESFRAGISQHTE is presented as being
the by-product
of two active verbals, hearing then believing.
Now to my point.
In either case, I am just as comfortable taking KATHRTISMENA and
ESFRAGISQHTE as Passives.
And all that changes is the "time frame" from which the situations
are PORTRAYED.
Passives, in this instance, present the event at the CODA/End Point, while
Middles can present the SAME event BEFORE the CODA. And in this
instance, the Agent would correspond to whether one is PORTRAYING
the event at the CODA or BEFORE the CODA, hence, the ambiguity.
In the Romans passage, I see this sequence:
God is patient, then, some chose to not believe to their own detriment
(middle), so God responds by assigning them to a certain fate (passive).
Either way, the middle precedes the passive on this time spectrum. (Also
note that God "assigning them" could be taken as a middle from the
standpoint of Gods action, or passive when viewed from the standpoint of
those being assigned; once again, the PORTRAYAL of
the event is critical.)
In Ephesians:
Individuals first hear, then believe, this act assures their being sealed
(middle), but it is the
Holy Spirit that actually seals them (passive). Again, the middle precedes
the passive in time, whether chronologically as in Romans, or logically
here.
How does this dilemma address Voice? (even assume Ive forced this due to
theological reasons) Can a legitimate difference between the Middle and
Passive be seen in how the act is PORTRAYED?
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list