Matthew 24:7

Matth.24:7&11 Paul S Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Sat Dec 7 13:51:42 EST 2002

Matth.24:7&11 Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 20:58:33 +0300 “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>writes:> > Matth.24:7 EGERQHSETAI GAR EQNOS EPI EQNOS KAI BASILEIA > EPIBASILEIAN…> > Matth.24:11 KAI POLLOI YEUDOPROFHTAI EGERQHSONTAI…> > The verbs in these passages are both in the future passive tense.> > The transtations I checked transtate these something like “will> > rise” or “will arise” instead of “will be raised.> > What would be the reason for this.> > If it were translated in the passive tense, it could indicate> > that God’s hand causes nation to rise against nation and false> > prophets to arise.> >> > Bert de Haan> > And then in 24:24 God will also be raising up false Christs to > deceive, if> possible, even the chosen ones????? Luckily, most Bible translators > are> guided by context more than what they may or may not have learned in > a Greek> grammar class. Although these verbs have traditionally been termed > passive,> they are better understood as MP forms where it is a contextual> interpretation whether the sense is middle or passive.> > Have you read Carl’s paper? You could also check the archives from > October> and November last year. A search for “Middle” will give you a lot > of> postings to chew on. This included discussion of ANISTHMI and > EGEIRW.Hi Iver:There is contextual, albeit a wider context, support for the idea thatthese supposedly MP forms should be taken passively. 2 Thess 2:11indicates that it is God who causes a strong delusion to come upon themso that they would believe a lie. If EGERQHSONTAI of Mt 24:24 is taken passively, it does not follow thatGod is intending to deceive the elect, but that it may not be possible. Rather, the intent to deceive comes from the near YEUDOCRISTOI KAIYEUDOPROFHTAI.Our theological presuppostions do affect our interpretations. It isprobably this, rather than luck, that is the immediate cause for someinterpreters leaving the traditional understanding of the future passiveto opt for a middle understanding.Paul Dixon________________________________________________________________Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access TodayOnly $9.95 per month!Visit www.juno.com

Matth.24:7&11Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA

Matth.24:7&11 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Sat Dec 7 18:20:21 EST 2002

Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA In a message dated 12/7/02 12:53:43 PM, dixonps at juno.com writes:>> >> And then in 24:24 God will also be raising up false Christs to >> deceive, if>> possible, even the chosen ones????? Luckily, most Bible translators >> are>> guided by context more than what they may or may not have learned in> >> a Greek>> grammar class. Although these verbs have traditionally been termed >> passive,>> they are better understood as MP forms where it is a contextual>> interpretation whether the sense is middle or passive.>> >> Have you read Carl’s paper? You could also check the archives from >> October>> and November last year. A search for “Middle” will give you a lot >> of>> postings to chew on. This included discussion of ANISTHMI and >> EGEIRW.> >Hi Iver:> >There is contextual, albeit a wider context, support for the idea that>these supposedly MP forms should be taken passively. 2 Thess 2:11>indicates that it is God who causes a strong delusion to come upon them>so that they would believe a lie. > >If EGERQHSONTAI of Mt 24:24 is taken passively, it does not follow that>God is intending to deceive the elect, but that it may not be possible.> >Rather, the intent to deceive comes from the near YEUDOCRISTOI KAI>YEUDOPROFHTAI.> >Our theological presuppostions do affect our interpretations. It is>probably this, rather than luck, that is the immediate cause for some>interpreters leaving the traditional understanding of the future passive>to opt for a middle understanding.> >Paul DixonI ask that we stick with the narrow context of what the Greek text in Matt. 24 is indicating. This is not a list for working out your NT Theology or eschatology even though most of us have an appreciation for the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura.Thanks,Carlton WinberyCo-moderater

Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMASemantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA

Matth.24:7&11 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Dec 8 01:05:12 EST 2002

Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA Teaching aspect via english > > Hi Iver:> > There is contextual, albeit a wider context, support for the idea that> these supposedly MP forms should be taken passively. 2 Thess 2:11> indicates that it is God who causes a strong delusion to come upon them> so that they would believe a lie.> > If EGERQHSONTAI of Mt 24:24 is taken passively, it does not follow that> God is intending to deceive the elect, but that it may not be possible.> Rather, the intent to deceive comes from the near YEUDOCRISTOI KAI> YEUDOPROFHTAI.Yes, I accept that my response was rather quick and probably not clear onthe main point I had in mind.It is better to check all the occurrences of EGEIRW, and we addressed thisin the discussions last year. There are many so-called passive forms of thisand other verbs that in context cannot be interpreted as passive in theEnglish sense of passive. So, my point is that we should not start off withthe assumption that all passive (MP2) forms of a Greek verb necessarily havea passive sense. Many of them are better understood as middle. However, someof them could well be interpreted as passive, just as some MP1 forms couldbe understood as passive in sense, depending on context and how thisparticular verb is normally used.For many verbs in the MP forms the distinction between passive and middle isnot important in the Greek. If a person rises up, it is often not specifiedwhether the grammatical subject is the agent/cause as well as experiencer(rise) or whether the agent is different from the experiencer (be raised).What the MP verb tells us is that the person is now raised up or has risen,not what or who caused it. The problem we have in translation is that whenan English passive is used, it usually indicates that the agent is differentfrom the experiencer. That is why a passive in English is sometimes aninaccurate translation of the passive in Greek. These grammatical categoriesdo not match across language boundaries.Iver Larsen

Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMATeaching aspect via english

Matth.24:7&11 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Mon Dec 9 06:10:36 EST 2002

Teaching aspect via english Matth.24:7&11 On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 12:05 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> Hi Iver:>> >> There is contextual, albeit a wider context, support for the idea that>> these supposedly MP forms should be taken passively. 2 Thess 2:11>> indicates that it is God who causes a strong delusion to come upon >> them>> so that they would believe a lie.>> >> If EGERQHSONTAI of Mt 24:24 is taken passively, it does not follow >> that>> God is intending to deceive the elect, but that it may not be >> possible.>> Rather, the intent to deceive comes from the near YEUDOCRISTOI KAI>> YEUDOPROFHTAI.> > Yes, I accept that my response was rather quick and probably not clear > on> the main point I had in mind.> It is better to check all the occurrences of EGEIRW, and we addressed > this> in the discussions last year. There are many so-called passive forms > of this> and other verbs that in context cannot be interpreted as passive in the> English sense of passive. So, my point is that we should not start off > with> the assumption that all passive (MP2) forms of a Greek verb > necessarily have> a passive sense. Many of them are better understood as middle. > However, some> of them could well be interpreted as passive, just as some MP1 forms > could> be understood as passive in sense, depending on context and how this> particular verb is normally used.> > For many verbs in the MP forms the distinction between passive and > middle is> not important in the Greek. If a person rises up, it is often not > specified> whether the grammatical subject is the agent/cause as well as > experiencer> (rise) or whether the agent is different from the experiencer (be > raised).> What the MP verb tells us is that the person is now raised up or has > risen,> not what or who caused it. The problem we have in translation is that > when> an English passive is used, it usually indicates that the agent is > different> from the experiencer. That is why a passive in English is sometimes an> inaccurate translation of the passive in Greek. These grammatical > categories> do not match across language boundaries.I must admit at the start that, for various reasons, I did not want to get involved in this discussion of middle vs. passive in relation to the -QH- morphoparadigm. But I am fresh off the Packers’ win over Minnesota and, must admit, have had a few Jagermeisters, so I am somewhat pumped-up. (Sorry, all you fundamentalists. I am a Baptist, but have never claimed to be John the Baptist.)I have kept an open mind for quite some time to the idea that the -QH- verbs should be considered MP, and especially M unless accompanied by a modifier that explicitly indicates an agent (e.g., hUPO with the genitive). But I think the time has come to challenge this view. As I have been reading through the NT and taking special note of the -QH- verbs, I have come to the tentative conclusion that such verbs, whether with or without an expressed agent, should be taken as passive by default unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. I think an exhaustive, annotated study of *all* the -QH- verbs is necessary to solve this problem. I hope to do such a study soon. At the very least, I think convincing answers to the following questions/objections need to be forthcoming:(1) The idea that the -QH- morphoparadigm represents for the most part passive verbs is quite long-standing. When and how was the understanding that the -QH- morphoparadigm indicated middle-passive rather than passive lost? My question has to do with the total historical eclipse of understanding of a Greek morphoparadigm and when and how it happened. This is not akin to such a misunderstanding as the “punctiliar” view of the aorist, which has pretty much come and gone within a century. We are talking here about a fundamental misunderstanding that has presumably held sway for hundreds of, if not a couple thousand, years, and has only recently been “corrected.” How did such a fundamental blunder come about and flourish for so long? I don’t know if the proponents of the “new perspective” on the -QH- morphoparadigm have considered this or not, but if this “new perspective” is accepted, then we must squarely face the reality that much of our understanding of the NT has been wrong for centuries. So the stakes are high, whether or not the proponents of the “new perspective” have considered this or not. The repercussions go far beyond the borders of grammar and syntax.(2) Though those who propose that the -QH- morphoparadigm may or should be understood as middle unless accompanied by an explicit agent may deny this, much of their evidence seems to be predicated on whether or not a -QH- form is easily translated into English as a passive. Note well Iver’s comments above:” There are many so-called passive forms of this and other verbs that in context cannot be interpreted as passive in the English sense of passive.””The problem we have in translation is that when an English passive is used, it usually indicates that the agent is different from the experiencer. That is why a passive in English is sometimes an inaccurate translation of the passive in Greek. These grammatical categories do not match across language boundaries.”While I understand and sympathize with the burden of translators, we must always distinguish between the Greek idiom and that which is understandable or preferable in English. Just because the grammar check in Word 2000 may reject *our* use of the passive does not mean that such a use is unacceptable in Hellenistic Greek idiom. Yet this seems to be a constant underlying misconception in this discussion. It is simply not enough to argue that because a passive sense in English is “unnatural” that a verb in Greek is therefore not passive, and understood as passive in the Greek idiom. I demand evidence that the passive is unacceptable in the Greek idiom.(3) There seems constantly to be an argument set forth from what can legitimately be labeled as exceptions. It is not enough—at least for me—to argue that, since a relatively few verbs in the -QH- morphoparadigm should be understood as middle, that *all* verbs in the -QH- morphoparadigm may or should be considered middle unless accompanied by an explicit agent. I think that the majority of uses of the -QH- verbs indicates that these verbs should be considered passive by default unless proven otherwise. I think it is a methodological monstrosity to argue from the few to the many.(4) According to most authorities, the nuances associated with the middle voice are all but dying out during the period in which the NT was written. This is understandable in light of the fact that “the subtleties of a language that could easily be mastered by native speakers tend to fall away when that language is learned by non-natives” (Wallace). Yet if we are to accept the “new perspective,” the middle is not only alive and well, but capable of expressing nuances never before thought possible. Take a few of our recent discussions on :When we discussed ESFRAGISQHTE in Ephesians 1.13, we were told that it could very well mean “you allowed yourselves to be sealed” or “you submitted to be sealed” or the like. Yet this is very much more nuanced that taking ESFRAGISQHTE as a simple passive. If anyone cares, I think it is obvious from the context that it should be taken as passive. I think that, among other things, some stylistic considerations were overlooked. At any rate, this interpretation demands a highly nuanced middle sense.Or how about our recent discussion of hEUREQHN in Romans 10.20? It was suggested that hEUREQHN was not passive at all, but rather meant “I revealed myself.” Considering the basic lexical meaning of hEURISKW is “find,” this entails the idea of “finding myself out to.” A long way to go considering the passive is readily understandable. And it is not as if there is no middle sense to go by. In Hebrews 9.12 hEURAMENOS seems to mean “obtained.” This is a natural extension of the lexeme “to find,” while it is hard to see how “reveal myself” is in any way natural even in a middle sense, especially when it is contrasted with TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN (“those who did not seek me”). When we take into consideration that Paul purposely rearranged the LXX wording so that there is a play on the words “find” and “seek,” it seems obvious that the sense is, “I was found by those who did not seek me.” Again, though Word 2000 may not like this, it does not mean that it is unnatural Greek.I have not seen much of a challenge to the “new perspective.” But in the limited time I have, I hope to provide at least some dissent to a view that seems, for the most part, to be going unchallenged on .=============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI

Teaching aspect via englishMatth.24:7&11

Matth.24:7&11 Paul Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Mon Dec 9 19:18:38 EST 2002

Hoehner’s Commentary on Ephesians Dative in Lk. 2:9 On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 05:10:36 -0600 Steven Lo Vullo <slovullo at mac.com>writes:> On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 12:05 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> > >>> >> Hi Iver:> >>> >> There is contextual, albeit a wider context, support for the idea > that> >> these supposedly MP forms should be taken passively. 2 Thess > 2:11> >> indicates that it is God who causes a strong delusion to come > upon > >> them> >> so that they would believe a lie.> >>> >> If EGERQHSONTAI of Mt 24:24 is taken passively, it does not > follow > >> that> >> God is intending to deceive the elect, but that it may not be > >> possible.> >> Rather, the intent to deceive comes from the near YEUDOCRISTOI > KAI> >> YEUDOPROFHTAI.> >> > Yes, I accept that my response was rather quick and probably not > clear > > on> > the main point I had in mind.> > It is better to check all the occurrences of EGEIRW, and we > addressed > > this> > in the discussions last year. There are many so-called passive > forms > > of this> > and other verbs that in context cannot be interpreted as passive > in the> > English sense of passive. So, my point is that we should not start > off > > with> > the assumption that all passive (MP2) forms of a Greek verb > > necessarily have> > a passive sense. Many of them are better understood as middle. > > However, some> > of them could well be interpreted as passive, just as some MP1 > forms > > could> > be understood as passive in sense, depending on context and how > this> > particular verb is normally used.> >> > For many verbs in the MP forms the distinction between passive and > > > middle is> > not important in the Greek. If a person rises up, it is often not > > > specified> > whether the grammatical subject is the agent/cause as well as > > experiencer> > (rise) or whether the agent is different from the experiencer (be > > > raised).> > What the MP verb tells us is that the person is now raised up or > has > > risen,> > not what or who caused it. The problem we have in translation is > that > > when> > an English passive is used, it usually indicates that the agent is > > > different> > from the experiencer. That is why a passive in English is > sometimes an> > inaccurate translation of the passive in Greek. These grammatical > > > categories> > do not match across language boundaries.> > I must admit at the start that, for various reasons, I did not want > to > get involved in this discussion of middle vs. passive in relation to > > the -QH- morphoparadigm. But I am fresh off the Packers’ win over > Minnesota and, must admit, have had a few Jagermeisters, so I am > somewhat pumped-up. (Sorry, all you fundamentalists. I am a Baptist, > > but have never claimed to be John the Baptist.)> > I have kept an open mind for quite some time to the idea that the > -QH- > verbs should be considered MP, and especially M unless accompanied > by a > modifier that explicitly indicates an agent (e.g., hUPO with the > genitive). But I think the time has come to challenge this view. As > I > have been reading through the NT and taking special note of the -QH- > > verbs, I have come to the tentative conclusion that such verbs, > whether > with or without an expressed agent, should be taken as passive by > default unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. I think an > > exhaustive, annotated study of *all* the -QH- verbs is necessary to > > solve this problem. I hope to do such a study soon. At the very > least, > I think convincing answers to the following questions/objections > need > to be forthcoming:> > (1) The idea that the -QH- morphoparadigm represents for the most > part > passive verbs is quite long-standing. When and how was the > understanding that the -QH- morphoparadigm indicated middle-passive > > rather than passive lost? My question has to do with the total > historical eclipse of understanding of a Greek morphoparadigm and > when > and how it happened. This is not akin to such a misunderstanding as > the > “punctiliar” view of the aorist, which has pretty much come and gone > > within a century. We are talking here about a fundamental > misunderstanding that has presumably held sway for hundreds of, if > not > a couple thousand, years, and has only recently been “corrected.” > How > did such a fundamental blunder come about and flourish for so long? > I > don’t know if the proponents of the “new perspective” on the -QH- > morphoparadigm have considered this or not, but if this “new > perspective” is accepted, then we must squarely face the reality > that > much of our understanding of the NT has been wrong for centuries. So > > the stakes are high, whether or not the proponents of the “new > perspective” have considered this or not. The repercussions go far > beyond the borders of grammar and syntax.> > (2) Though those who propose that the -QH- morphoparadigm may or > should > be understood as middle unless accompanied by an explicit agent may > > deny this, much of their evidence seems to be predicated on whether > or > not a -QH- form is easily translated into English as a passive. Note > > well Iver’s comments above:> > ” There are many so-called passive forms of this and other verbs > that > in context cannot be interpreted as passive in the English sense of > > passive.”> > “The problem we have in translation is that when an English passive > is > used, it usually indicates that the agent is different from the > experiencer. That is why a passive in English is sometimes an > inaccurate translation of the passive in Greek. These grammatical > categories do not match across language boundaries.”> > While I understand and sympathize with the burden of translators, we > > must always distinguish between the Greek idiom and that which is > understandable or preferable in English. Just because the grammar > check > in Word 2000 may reject *our* use of the passive does not mean that > > such a use is unacceptable in Hellenistic Greek idiom. Yet this > seems > to be a constant underlying misconception in this discussion. It is > > simply not enough to argue that because a passive sense in English > is > “unnatural” that a verb in Greek is therefore not passive, and > understood as passive in the Greek idiom. I demand evidence that the > > passive is unacceptable in the Greek idiom.> > (3) There seems constantly to be an argument set forth from what can > > legitimately be labeled as exceptions. It is not enough—at least for > > me—to argue that, since a relatively few verbs in the -QH- > morphoparadigm should be understood as middle, that *all* verbs in > the > -QH- morphoparadigm may or should be considered middle unless > accompanied by an explicit agent. I think that the majority of uses > of > the -QH- verbs indicates that these verbs should be considered > passive > by default unless proven otherwise. I think it is a methodological > monstrosity to argue from the few to the many.> > (4) According to most authorities, the nuances associated with the > middle voice are all but dying out during the period in which the NT > > was written. This is understandable in light of the fact that “the > subtleties of a language that could easily be mastered by native > speakers tend to fall away when that language is learned by > non-natives” (Wallace). Yet if we are to accept the “new > perspective,” > the middle is not only alive and well, but capable of expressing > nuances never before thought possible. Take a few of our recent > discussions on :> > When we discussed ESFRAGISQHTE in Ephesians 1.13, we were told that > it > could very well mean “you allowed yourselves to be sealed” or “you > submitted to be sealed” or the like. Yet this is very much more > nuanced > that taking ESFRAGISQHTE as a simple passive. If anyone cares, I > think > it is obvious from the context that it should be taken as passive. I > > think that, among other things, some stylistic considerations were > overlooked. At any rate, this interpretation demands a highly > nuanced > middle sense.> > Or how about our recent discussion of hEUREQHN in Romans 10.20? It > was > suggested that hEUREQHN was not passive at all, but rather meant “I > > revealed myself.” Considering the basic lexical meaning of hEURISKW > is > “find,” this entails the idea of “finding myself out to.” A long way > to > go considering the passive is readily understandable. And it is not > as > if there is no middle sense to go by. In Hebrews 9.12 hEURAMENOS > seems > to mean “obtained.” This is a natural extension of the lexeme “to > find,” while it is hard to see how “reveal myself” is in any way > natural even in a middle sense, especially when it is contrasted > with > TOIS EME MH ZHTOUSIN (“those who did not seek me”). When we take > into > consideration that Paul purposely rearranged the LXX wording so that > > there is a play on the words “find” and “seek,” it seems obvious > that > the sense is, “I was found by those who did not seek me.” Again, > though > Word 2000 may not like this, it does not mean that it is unnatural > Greek.> > I have not seen much of a challenge to the “new perspective.” But in > > the limited time I have, I hope to provide at least some dissent to > a > view that seems, for the most part, to be going unchallenged on > .Thanks, Steven. Your dissension is well reasoned. It does seem hugeblind steps have been taken if we conclude that the long-standing passiveunderstanding of the -QH- morphoparadigm may not be passive after all,and that it might better be rendered in the active or middle voice in theEnglish. A comprehensive study of the -QH- morphoparadigm in the NT and LXX wouldbe very interesting and telling. I’d be happy to assist you in thatendeavor, if you’d________________________________________________________________Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access TodayOnly $9.95 per month!Visit www.juno.com

Hoehner’s Commentary on EphesiansDative in Lk. 2:9