[B-Greek] 1 Peter 1:15
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Thu Jan 6 22:54:59 EST 2005
Carl you wrote
I do think that EGENETO is middle IN Genesis 1:3: do you
think it's passive? I'd be willing to accept that it's passive
semantically, but my question was why the imperative passive form GENHQHTW
followed by the indicative middle form EGENETO? Do you postulate a
difference in meaning on the basis of the difference of morphoparadigm? I
think that the semantic force of both forms must be the same although
different morphoparadigms are employed.
Response: Do you think that the reason GENHQHTW passive imperative is followed by EGENETO indicative middle is because the LXX translator is trying to translate the Hebrew jussive W:HIY 'OR and the qal imperfect WAHIY 'OR with an indicative middle?
In other words we don't know what type of translation metheds the authors of the LXX used. (i.e. dynamic equavelent of wooden literal) it could be that the reason he chose the different forms of the GINOMAI was based off of what he thought would best represent the Hebrew jussive and qal imperfect.
--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net
> At 6:50 PM -0600 1/6/05, Charles Rempel wrote:
> >CWC: And the middle sense of EGENETO FWS is NOT that "light did something to
> >itself" but that "light came into being." The middle voice does not require
> >ACTION OF THE GRAMMATICAL SUBJECT UPON ITSELF; rather it involves
> >INVOLVEMENT OF THE GRAMMATICAL SUBJECT IN A PROCESS, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR
> >INVOLUNTARY. It seems to me that much of the rejection of middle semantics
> >for the GENHQH- forms lies in a notion that the middle voice must mean
> >direct reflexive action of the grammatical subject upon itself. But the
> >middle voice does not require that the grammatical subject be consciously,
> >deliberately PERFORMING an action
> >
> >CDR: My question then becomes, relative to Genesis 1:3, "How is the subject,
> >light, involved in the process, whether voluntary or involuntary?" What is
> >that process and how is light involved? If I understand the implications of
> >what you are saying, the process is simply "becoming" and light is
> >involved - end of thought - period.
>
> Yes, as EGEIRETAI means "awakens," GINETAI means "comes to birth" or
> "happens," KOIMATAI means "falls asleep," APOLLUTAI means "perishes."
> Under the right circumstances APOLLUTAI may be passive if an agent is
> explicitly expressed or understood implicitly, as APOLLUTAI hH STRATIA hUPO
> TWN POLEMIWN, "the army is destroyed by the foemen," but it may be middle
> in APOLLUTAI TO GALA, "the milk spoils"--without any agent bringing about
> the spoilage (I believe the Greek speakers/writers would have thought of a
> natural process that the milk undergoes rather than a process involving
> microorganisms). I do think that EGENETO is middle IN Genesis 1:3: do you
> think it's passive? I'd be willing to accept that it's passive
> semantically, but my question was why the imperative passive form GENHQHTW
> followed by the indicative middle form EGENETO? Do you postulate a
> difference in meaning on the basis of the difference of morphoparadigm? I
> think that the semantic force of both forms must be the same although
> different morphoparadigms are employed.
>
> >While you insist on the GENHQH- forms
> >being middle, there is a school of thought which disagrees.
>
> You've evidently misunderstood me. What I've said as that BOTH the GEN- and
> GENHQH- forms may be interpreted in BOTH middle and passive senses. I
> thought you were insisting on the monovalent interpretations of the two
> forms.
>
> There is a
> >school of thought which indicates GENHQH to be passive. And the passive
> >gives a legitimate form of understanding not totally different from what you
> >are saying. I respect your viewpoint and would love to get into the theology
> >of this one ...
>
> I really don't know why theology should have anything whatsoever to do with
> it. I readily grant that EGENETO FWS may be understood as a passive in
> terms of God's creation of light--but that's not a matter of theology but a
> matter of semantics. Suppose we had the sequence, "Matt flicked the
> light-switch and EGENETO FWS." You can certainly interpret that as a
> passive: "the light was turned on (by Matt)" but you can just as well say,
> "Matt flicked the light switch and the light came on." CAME ON is an
> instance of the sort of middle-voice function I've been talking about.
>
> >To some degree I think we are arguing semantics more than
> >anything. I do readily accept that the middle is not primarily reflexive and
> >if you go back and check the posts, I cited ATR before you did, although the
> >messages may have crossed each other. I think that your middle
> >interpretation and my passive interpretation result in virtually the same
> >conclusion. Though I do believe the passive opens the door for greater
> >theological understanding. (Oh yes, verboten:-)
>
> Yes, our messages did cross, but I was citing a portion of a message that I
> originally posted Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:42:18 -0500, "[b-greek] A.T.Robertson
> on Voice." I later on Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:56:18 -0500 posted a second
> message with header "[b-greek] A.T. Robertson on Voice (2)." I have
> researched the matter in fact since Spring of 1997 and have shared my
> findings over the course of the time here. At any rate, I have repeatedly
> said that I can readily accept a passive reading of many of the GENHQH-
> passages in the GNT; it's just that I think the GEN- 2nd aorist middle
> forms may support exactly the same sorts of passive reading. My position is
> that the morphoparadigm is not a factor significant in itself in indicating
> semantic voice, any more than the syntactic relationship of an adnominal
> genitive to its head noun is a factor significant in itself in indicating
> whether one should understanding it as a subjective genitive or an
> objective genitive; rather that is a matter of interpretation on the basis
> of context.
> --
>
> 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/
> ---
> 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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list