[B-Greek] 1 Peter 1:15"
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jan 2 17:34:39 EST 2005
At 2:11 PM -0600 1/2/05, Charles Rempel wrote:
>Let's take up an instance of EGENOMHN and EGENHQHN where the meaning of the
>expressions in which they are found appears to be to all intents and
>purposes identical:
>
>Eph 3:6-7 ... TOU EUAGGELIOU, hOU EGENHQHN DIAKONOS KATA THN DWREAN THS
>CARITOS TOU QEOU ...
>
>Col. 1:23 ... TOU EUAGGELIOU ... hOU EGENOMHN EGW PAULOS DIAKONOS ...
>
>Col. 1:24-5 ... hH EKKLHSIA, hHS EGENOMHN EGW DIAKONOS KATA THN OIKONOMIAN
>TOU QEOU THN DOQEISAN MOI ...
>
>Are we to say that in Eph 3:6-7 EGENHQHN DIAKONOS means "I was made (by God)
>a servant" but that in Col. 1-23-5 the two expressions EGENOMHN DIAKONOS
>bear a different semantic "voice" and mean something like "I came to be (of
>my own accord) a servant"?
>
>Carl W. Conrad
>
>CDR:
>
>OK, I'm going to let you draw me into brief observations on the middle.
>Mitch Larramore was indeed correct when he said that the middle voice was
>more complex than the "simplistic" reflexive.
>
>Moulton in his grammer states that "... the middle involves the whole
>subject in the verbs action and expresses the subject in some special
>realtionship to himself ... there is little significance between the writers
>choice of the middle and active voices ... the reflexive midle is relatively
>rare ... the reciprocal middle rarer ...
>
>Blass DeBrunner states that "NT authors in general preserve well the
>distinction between the middle and passive. ... the middle is occasionally
>used where active is expected."
>
>A.T.Robertson states "The only difference between the active and middle
>voice is that the middle voice calls special attention to the subject. ...
>(The middle) is exxentially the voice of personal interest somewhat like a
>dative case."
>
>Gildersleeve: ... the interpretation of the difference between the active
>and middle is in many cases more lexical than grammatical.
>
>Dana & Mantey state "The indirect middle (the most common) ... is closely
>related to the subject, or is related to the subject in some special and
>distinctive sense which the writer wishes to emphasize. The reason for the
>emphasis is to be inferred from the context.
>
>It is interesting to note that according to the grammars the active and
>middle are more closely related in meaning while the middle and passive is
>referenced as haveing "distinction between" preserved.
>
>We know that in the logic of the Greek language the author may view the same
>event from different perspectives, i.e. I have been saved(aorist), I am
>being saved(present), I will be saved(future) and yet all refering to the
>salvation experience.
>
>Likewise with Pauls' discussion about becoming a minister of Christ. In
>Ephesians he uses the passive voice without explanation because he
>acknowledges that it is not his action which causes him to be a minister.
>
>In Colossians Paul desires to show his intense involvement on behalf of the
>Colossians and uses the middle voice. However to make sure that the readers
>do not misunderstand his use of the middle voice he explains that this
>spiritual gift, or office, was "... according to the stewardship from God
>bestowed on me for your benefit, ...".
>
>So I would conclude that the passive and middle voices are distinctive and
>their meanings should be correctly read to understand the intent of Paul.
Well, I do think that's a very subtle distinction you draw between the usage of
EGENOMHN in Colossians and EGENHQHN in Ephesians with the same predicate word.
You are aware, of course, that this verb has no active form at all; that would
seem to obviate the discussion of the distinction between active and middle
above. A. T. Robertson has quite a bit more to say about the voices than what
you've cited, and I've actually cited those sections of ATR at length in
list-correspondence back in 2002.
If it appears that I've abandoned this discourse, I just want to note I'll be
absent from this conversation for the next couple days while traveling back
eastwards.
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