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 God’s 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 I’ve 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