[B-Greek] 2 Thess. 2:6-7--two proposals

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Mar 2 13:51:54 EST 2007


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Webb" <webb at selftest.net>
>
> Dear Oun,
> 1.  Difference btw active vs passive -- may it have something to do
> with the nature of 'middle' in Gk?
>
> Not to me, it doesn't. It has to do with my understanding that GINOMAI is
> strictly an intransitive verb. It never EVER takes an object. If a verb
> can't take an object, you can't turn it into a passive. In English, for
> example, the verb "to be" doesn't take an object. Like GINOMAI, it can take
> a predicate nominative or a predicate adjective and whatnot, but it can't
> take an object. If a verb (let's say X is a verb) is capable of being
> transitive, then it is capable of taking an object. "I X this thing." For
> the most part, that also means that I can use the object as the subject, and
> throw the verb into the passive voice to express an equivalent statement:
> "This thing is Xed by me". But you can't say "I am ammed". There is no
> passive voice for the verb "to be", or for any strictly intransitive verb.
> So in 2 Thess. 2:7, whatever GENHTAI means, it can't mean that something
> else acts on the subject of the verb. Whatever action there is, is carried
> out by the subject. From my limited knowledge of Greek, ARTI hEWS EK MESOU
> GENHTAI can't possibly mean "until he is taken out of the way" (pace KJV,
> NASB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV).

> Webb Mealy

Carl has already explained the situation quite well, but let me add something from a semantic point 
of view that might be helpful. The above argumentation is inadequate, because it focuses on syntax 
without reference to semantics.

While transitive, intransitive, subject and object are syntactic terms, the "corresponding" semantic 
terms are divalent, monovalent, agent and patient. Actually, they often do not correspond, because 
patient may be either subject or object.

A divalent verb has two valencies, that is, it requires two participants (or arguments) in the 
proposition. The two most common roles are Agent and Patient. An Agent is often expressed in the 
syntax by a subject and the Patient by an object. In "I X this thing", I is the Agent and subject 
while this thing is the Patient and object.

The passive construction is a syntactical transformation which removes the Agent and expresses the 
Patient as subject, e.g. "This thing was X'ed". In English (and Greek, but in some other languages 
not) you can add a secondary agent role by a preposition like "by me", as long as the Agent role is 
present in the full semantic frame of the verb. Semantically, a passivization means to remove the 
Agent and keep the Patient as the only role left.

Now, the semantic frames for verbs like "to be" and GINOMAI "come into being" are both monovalent 
with the single role Patient, rather than Agent. This means that such verbs have more in common with 
a passive than an intransitive active verb, because both GINOMAI and the passive have only one role, 
the Patient, which is expressed as subject in the nominative. GINOMAI does not allow an Agent, and 
the subject is never the Agent, but if there is an Agent involved, it can usually be derived from 
the context. In translation, it is at times helpful to express such an Agent and we then end up with 
a construction very similar to "This thing was X'ed by Y".

GINOMAI is an interesting verb, partly because there is no equivalent in English. It can also be 
divalent with both a Patient and a Beneficiary role. (The Beneficiary is normally expressed as an 
indirect object and with dative in Greek), e.g.

Mt 18:12 GENHTAI TINI ANQRWPWi hEKATON PROBATA (100 sheep had become to a certain man). The 100 
sheep has the Patient role and the man is the Beneficiary.

In Rom 7:3 GENHTAI ANDRI hETERWi there is no explicit subject (no Patient) only the Beneficiary 
dative. The understood Patient from context is the lady.

We find an EK phrase in
Mt 21:19 MHKETI EK SOU KARPOS GENHTAI  (Fruit will no longer come into being from you). Again there 
is no Agent, but KARPOS is the Patient and subject. SOU is a different semantic role, called Source. 
I suppose one could say that Jesus or God is the Agent or Cause, but that doesn't make it a "divine 
passive".

In 2 Th 2:7 hO KATECWN ARTI hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI

The subject and Patient is hO KATECWN. This "restrainer" will change from the state of being in the 
midst (of the evil world) to a state of being removed to somewhere else not specified. Nor is it 
specified who does the removing, but from the broader Biblical context we can deduce who the Agent 
is, and it is not hO KATECWN. As far as translation goes, either "has gone" or "is removed" is 
acceptable to me, but I wouldn't vote for any of the two original suggestions by Webb. The first one 
is confusing, and the second one is wrong because of the mistaken addition of "among us".

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list