[B-Greek] Mt 1:18 hEUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA
Iver Larsen
iver at larsen.dk
Thu Feb 2 09:06:35 EST 2006
>>> I see no
>>> problem with the translation: "it emerged that she was pregnant"
>>
>> Other than the fact that no native English speaker would ever phrase
>> it that way.
>
> I think that all Iver was trying to do with this phrase was explain
> how the Danish version "worked."
That is correct. It was a translation of the Danish expression, and I accept that I don't have a good feeling for what
native English speakers would prefer, and different people prefer different things, anyway.
>
> One question regarding these versions (and Harold's "it became
> evident that she was pregnant") is whether hEUREQH in hEUREQH EN
> GASTRI ECOUSA is to be conceived as an impersonal verb, in which
> case, I guess, (MARIA) ... EN GASTRI ECOUSA will have to be some sort
> of a complement. I frankly don't think that's very likely,
> particularly in view of such other GNT instances of the idiom, e.g.,
>
> Lk 9:36 KAI EN TWi GENESQAI THN FWNHN hEUREQH IHSOUS MONOS (Surely we
> wouldn't want to convey this as, "it became evident that he was
> alone" -- but perhaps some would.)
>
> 2 Cor 5:3 ... EI GE KAI EKDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI hEUREQHSOMEQA -- "...
> it won't become evident that we will be naked ..."?
>
> Rev 16:20 KAI PASA NHSOS EFUGEN KAI ORH OUC hEUREQHSAN -- " ... and
> every island vanished and it became evident that the mountains did
> not exist ..."
...
> My contention is that hEUREQH in Mt 1:18 is not
> passive but is middle; it is somewhat like EGENETO, but EGENETO seems
> more neutral in indication of event; hEUREQH has more the force of
> becoming evident, much like EFANH (which is not passive but the
> aorist middle of FAINOMAI), and like FAINOMAI, hEURISKOMAI in this
> sense is a personal verb taking a nominative complement. Or so I think.
Yes, I agree that the sense is different from EGENETO, but very similar to EFANH. However, after further reflection, it
seems to me that the form is indeed best interpreted as passive rather than middle.
Let me go back to Rom 7:10, because there the experiencer is explicit. In most other cases, the experiencer is implicit.
KAI hEUREQH MOI hH ENTOLH
It became evident to me that the commandment...
I realized that the commandment...
In Mt 1:18, the experiencer is implicit. If we use a verb like "realize" we have to make the experiencer explicit. Even
if Mary was the first to realize it, it is implied that Joseph also realized her pregnancy, and maybe others. The
advantage of using an impersonal verb in a translation is that we then do not have to go beyond what the text is saying.
We can leave the experiencer(s) implicit. "It became evident that she was pregnant." Or: "She was seen to be pregnant."
The text tells us nothing about when she actually became pregnant.
In a normal active verb, the agent or experiencer is expressed by the grammatical subject. In a normal middle verb, the
experiencer is co-referential with the agent, if there is one, e.g. she found herself to be.., she discovered that...
In a passive construction, the subject expresses the patient (semantic object). Looking at the various occurrences of
the passive of hEURISKW, the grammatical subjects appear to be semantic patients rather than middle experiencers or
active agents. The semantic experiencer is expressed by the dative which is not unusual with verbs of perception.
In Lk 9:36, it is not so much that Jesus found himself to be alone, but that the 3 disciples now saw Jesus being alone.
"There was no one else to be seen (by the disciples)"
In 2 Cor 5:3 I also think that the main point is that we don't want to be seen "naked", but the extended and special
sense makes it a special case.
In Rev 16:20 the islands vanished and mountains could no longer be seen.
Gal 2:17 hEUREQHMEN KAI AUTOI hAMARTWLOI
Even us, we were considered (seen to be) sinners (by the Judaizers). (Which, of course, Paul vehemently denies that they
are. He certainly did not "find himself" to be a sinner.) In this case, using "it became evident", as NIV has it, is
seriously misleading. This particular verse is unfortunately misunderstood and mistranslated by most English versions,
maybe because of hEURISKW?
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list