[B-Greek] 1 Peter 1:15
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jan 7 06:17:27 EST 2005
At 3:54 AM +0000 1/7/05, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:
>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.
Right: we don't know. But GENESQW or ESTW would, I think, have served to
translate W:HIY 'OR just as well. All I will say is that I don't think that
the translator was consciously switching from a passive meaning in GENHQHTW
to a middle meaning in EGENETO. I think that EITHER both forms were
understood as having middle semantic force OR both forms were understood as
having passive semantic force.
>> 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
>---
>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