[B-Greek] Heb. 10:22 -- Perf. Pass. Ptcs & Accusatives

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 19 06:01:56 EDT 2004


At 11:41 PM -0400 5/18/04, CWestf5155 at aol.com wrote:
>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.

Cindy, I do not, in fact, argue that the subject's initiative is stressed;
what I see underscored rather is that the subject has undergone the
experience--whether or not he/she has initiated the experience. The
ambivalence of the verb GINOMAI is in fact almost "prototypical" of verbs
such as EGEIROMAI which indicate subject-affectedness, whether
subject-initiated or not.

>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
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek

-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list