[B-Greek] Heb. 10:22 -- Perf. Pass. Ptcs & Accusatives
CWestf5155 at aol.com
CWestf5155 at aol.com
Tue May 18 23:41:25 EDT 2004
In a message dated 5/18/2004 1:01:51 PM Mountain Standard Time,
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:
At 11:12 AM -0700 5/18/04, Mitch Larramore wrote:
>Cindy:
>
>This has been helpful for me to see this interaction.
>I was under the impression that even if the participle
>is taken as a MIDDLE, that still does not negate
>Christ as the agent who acts upon (passive sense) the
>subject.
>
>The MIDDLE voice stresses that the subject permits or
>initiates the action that comes upon himself, even if
>that action comes from an outside agent, so if that is
>the case, then Christ can still be the agent that acts
>upon a willing subject, who through some decision has
>"set things in motion to be acted upon."
>
>Am I thinking rightly?
Mitch, you're thinking rightly--from my point of view, at least. For one
thing, although the explanation of accusative "objects" of passive verbs is
old and conventional, I think it is quite unconvincing, just like the
corresponding VINCTA NODO CAPILLOS which translates into English as "her
hair tied back in a knot" but literally "having her air tied back in a
knot." The reason that one form functions to represent both semantic middle
and semantic passive is that the Greek didn't feel it necessary to
distinguish them. "having gotten our hearts cleansed from a bad conscience
and our bodies washed in cleansing water" neatly expresses the precise
character of this ambivalent morphoparadigm in English. I won't dispute
Cindy's argument about the agent so much as I'd dispute that the Greek form
is intended to draw such a distinction.
Carl (and Mitch),
Fair enough. I'm with you in reference to the Greek not drawing the
distinction between the semantic middle and passive. I think you'[ve drawn my
attention to the fact that I've broken my own rules by calling the form passive since
its formally "ambiguous" (is there a better word?).
But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Where I'm balking is
on the idea that these two participles are actually stressing that the
subject through some decision has "set things in motion to be acted on", or that the
intiative of the subject is stressed (and therefore it is a middle). If the
Greek form is not intended to draw a distinction, I don't see how it stresses
the subject's initiative unless it is clear from the semantics or context.
The context in chs 9-10 would constrain the meaning to focus on Christ as the
agent--the initiative of the believer is all in drawing near with confidence
based on his once-for-all work. There is no indication that the believer
participates in the purification by a decision in the preceding discussion on
purification and related issues. My take on the argument is that the author is
claiming that this had been done for them already without their knowledge when
they became partners with Christ (note that I don't think this is about
repentance).
Cindy Westfall
Adjunct Faculty Denver Seminary
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list