[B-Greek] 1 Peter 1:15
Charles Rempel
CharlesR at mygalaxyexpress.com
Mon Jan 10 23:45:19 EST 2005
Very good arguments Steve. I am not debating the middle nor do I find cause
to debate them. I have stated all along and quoted the grammars which say
the the reflexive middle is very rare. However, if you go look at the
original post of Dr. Conrad on 1 Peter 1:15, he translated it as a reflexive
middle. My position has been and remains that the passive forms of GINOMAI
can legitmately be understood as passives.
I will defer on all arguments as to the middles which you quote.
Perhaps we should drag this thread out ad infintum ad nauseaum by examining
all meanings of the middle voice relative to GINOMAI. I'll let you take
charge. You're doing an excellent job of presenting them. Please continue.
Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Lo Vullo [mailto:themelios at charter.net]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:18 PM
To: Charles Rempel
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 Peter 1:15
On Jan 10, 2005, at 6:36 AM, Charles Rempel wrote:
> GENHQHTE
>
> Hebrews 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has
> said,
> "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His
> works
> were finished from the foundation of the world.
>
> KAITOI TON ERGON APO KATABOLES KOSMOU GENHQENTON – aorist passive
> participle
> genitive neuter plural
>
> Ah … the fascinating genitive absolute construction. But still very
> passive
> in concept. The works did not finish themselves. God finished the
> works.
Two can play at this game, Charles.
Throughout the course of this thread you have demanded over and over
again, in practically every post, that the traditionally passive forms
of GINOMAI must of necessity indicate that some state, condition, or
result is effected with regard to the subject by an agent. And, on the
other hand, you have argued that middle semantics would require the
subject acting upon him/her/itself. You just did it again:
"The works did not finish themselves. God finished the works."
You have denied in a previous post that this simplistic view of the
middle represents your own understanding of middle semantics, yet your
argumentation in every case without exception uses this view of the
middle in an apparent attempt to make the idea that -QH forms of
GINOMAI may be semantically middle sound nonsensical. So, protestations
aside, your argument uniformly compares passive with
subject-acting-upon-itself middle.
With this in mind, let's look at a few examples of my own.
1 Cor 3.13 - hEKASTOU TO ERGON FANERON GENHSETAI, hH GAR hHMERA DHLWSEI
Now please tell me: Per your consistent, robotically repeated argument
regarding middle semantics, must the middle form GENHSETAI in 1 Cor
3.13 indicate that the work of each person will make ITSELF known? This
is evidently not the case, since the very next clause clearly indicates
that it is "the day" that will reveal it (hH GAR hHMERA DHLWSEI). So
GENHSETAI, traditionally middle in form, cannot be construed to
indicate that the subject is acting on itself.
Another example.
1 Cor 16.10 - EAN DE ELQHi TIMOQEOS, BLEPETE, hINA AFOBWS GENHTAI PROS
hUMAS
Once again we have a traditionally middle form of GINOMAI. So the
question is, must GENHTAI indicate that Paul wanted Timothy make
HIMSELF fearless? Hardly. The context indicates that Paul wanted the
CORINTHIANS to see to it that Timothy dwell among them without fear.
Once again, we have a traditionally middle form that can in no way be
construed to indicate the subject acting upon himself.
These examples call into question the very foundation of your argument,
which over and over again has been that -QH forms of GINOMAI cannot be
understood as semantically middle because to do so would require
understanding the subject as acting upon him/her/itself, and this would
be nonsensical in the given examples. But you can only get away with
this argument by using a distorted view of middle semantics. If you had
given a fair representation of the semantic nuances of the middle, it
would have been immediately obvious to those reading this thread that
understanding -QH forms as middle in some, or even many, instances is
in no way nonsensical, whether it is right or wrong. In other words,
whether or not your CONCLUSION is correct, your ARGUMENT is false
because it is predicated on a false premise, i.e., that the choice is
between either a true passive force or a middle force that semantically
portrays the subject as acting upon him/her/itself. You may deny this,
but it is what you have done over and over and over again.
One more thing. It will not do to say, as you have earlier, that you do
not really want to talk about the middle, only the passive, since you
yourself have based your argument on a comparison between the two,
though you have distorted middle semantics in your comparisons in order
to make your argument sound plausible. Your basic argument requires
that we compare passive and middle semantics, since it is clearly your
contention that to construe -QH forms of GINOMAI as middle is
nonsensical. Your basic argument REQUIRES that we talk about middle
semantics.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list