2 Thessalonians 2:7

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Webb webb at selftest.net
Thu Mar 1 15:02:21 EST 2007

[] 1 Tim 4.13 [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Dear Oun,1. Difference btw active vs passive — may it have something to dowith the nature of ‘middle’ in Gk?Not to me, it doesn’t. It has to do with my understanding that GINOMAI isstrictly an intransitive verb. It never EVER takes an object. If a verbcan’t take an object, you can’t turn it into a passive. In English, forexample, the verb “to be” doesn’t take an object. Like GINOMAI, it can takea predicate nominative or a predicate adjective and whatnot, but it can’ttake an object. If a verb (let’s say X is a verb) is capable of beingtransitive, then it is capable of taking an object. “I X this thing.” Forthe most part, that also means that I can use the object as the subject, andthrow 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 nopassive 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 somethingelse acts on the subject of the verb. Whatever action there is, is carriedout by the subject. From my limited knowledge of Greek, ARTI hEWS EK MESOUGENHTAI can’t possibly mean “until he is taken out of the way” (pace KJV,NASB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV).2. It should be ‘And now you know what’s ~ ‘, not ‘And you know what’s now~’I’ve got a lot of translations in front of me, including Lattimore, who isnot particularly influenced by the English bible translation tradition. Noone them takes NUN with OIDATE. I’m inclined to trust them on this.Webb Mealy

[] 1 Tim 4.13[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Mar 1 17:00:41 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Webb wrote:> > Dear Oun,> 1. Difference btw active vs passive — may it have something to do> with the nature of ‘middle’ in Gk?What it really has to do with is the fact that the forms labeled middle-passive and passive (QH) all, when intransitive, bear the sense “enter into state X.” The nearest English equivalent is “get” + predicate word (which may be a participle): GINOMAI is the quintessential middle-passive verb that can quite readily be Englished (usually) as “get” or “come to be” with a predicate word.> 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).Of course GENHTAI can’t mean that something else acts on the subject of the verb — but that may be implicit as it is always implicit in a MP form: GINETAI EK MESOU means “gets to be out-of-the-way, out-of- the-scene, off-the-table, out-of-this-world, out-of-this-life.” Just as EGEIRETAI means “enters into a waking (or upright) state” it is open to interpretation as “awakes” or “gets awakened.” While I think one ought to understand this ambivalence of the Greek MP form, I don’t really have any objection to understanding EK MESOU GINETAI as “gets removed” (passive) or “gets out of the way” (intransitive/ ergative: the subject may simply leave the center of action or he/she may be forcibly removed by an external agent.I have no quarrel with BDAG’s entry on this passage.BDAG, s.v. GINOMAI: EK T. OURANWN G.6. to make a change of location in space, moveb. EK TINOS (Job 28:2): γ. EK MESOU be removed, Lat. e medio tolli (cp. Ps.-Aeschin., Ep. 12, 6 EK MESOU GENOMENWN EKEINWN; Plut., Timol. 238 [5, 3]; Achilles Tat. 2, 27, 2) 2 Th 2:7 (HFulford, ET 23, 1912, 40f: ‘leave the scene’). Of a voice fr. heaven: EK T. OURANWN G. sound forth fr. heaven (2 Macc 2:21; cp. Da 4:31 Theod.) Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; 9:35; cp. vs. 36.> 2. It should be ‘And now you know what’s ~ ‘, not ‘And you know > what’s now> ~’> I’ve got a lot of translations in front of me, including Lattimore, > who is> not particularly influenced by the English bible translation > tradition. No> one them takes NUN with OIDATE. I’m inclined to trust them on this.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Webb webb at selftest.net
Thu Mar 1 18:23:22 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Dear Carl,You gave EGEIRW as an example of a verb that can sometimes be construed aseither middle or passive. But the difference between EGEIRW and GINOMAI isthat EGEIRW can be transitive, and GINOMAI cannot. HGERQH EK MESOU couldmean either “got up out of the middle” or “was lifted out from the middle”.Unless there was absolutely no other way the sentence could make sense, Ican’t see a reason to express GINOMAI EK MESOU as something beyond (1) “getsout of the way” or (2) “gets [under his own power] out of the situation”.And I think each of those readings makes good sense in and of itself in 2Thess. 2:7. For example, looking at option (1):The lawless one is going to appear at some future point. There’s only(MONOS) one thing holding him back: the restrainer (hO KATECWN), who, atsome future point, will presumably stop restraining, and at which point thelawless one will appear. I reckon that the idea of “to stop restraining” canbe expressed equally well as “to get out of the way” (GINOMAI EK MESOU).What’s wrong with that? Particularly in view of the fact that the writerpersonalizes the restrainer by calling him hO KATECWN, not just TO KATECON,the presumption is that this personal force has the option of restraining solong, and then stopping. If “until he gets out of the way” sounds like anunlikely rendering of ARTI hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI, I’d like to hear yourreason for thinking so. Otherwise I can’t see what would induce me toimagine another implied actor, who has the supposed role of removing therestrainer from the place where he metaphorically stands restraining.On the assumption that you’ve encountered the verb GINOMAI in tens ofthousands of instances, I accept your statement it’s not out of the questionthat GINOMAI can occasionally carry have an implicit passive sense. So onceagain, the question I’d have is, wouldn’t that be the last option, in thecase that a middle sense, “action performed by the subject and involving thesubject”, didn’t seem possible? Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:01 PMTo: WebbCc: ”Subject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposalsOn Mar 1, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Webb wrote:> > Dear Oun,> 1. Difference btw active vs passive — may it have something to do> with the nature of ‘middle’ in Gk?What it really has to do with is the fact that the forms labeled middle-passive and passive (QH) all, when intransitive, bear the sense “enter into state X.” The nearest English equivalent is “get” + predicate word (which may be a participle): GINOMAI is the quintessential middle-passive verb that can quite readily be Englished (usually) as “get” or “come to be” with a predicate word.> 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).Of course GENHTAI can’t mean that something else acts on the subject of the verb — but that may be implicit as it is always implicit in a MP form: GINETAI EK MESOU means “gets to be out-of-the-way, out-of- the-scene, off-the-table, out-of-this-world, out-of-this-life.” Just as EGEIRETAI means “enters into a waking (or upright) state” it is open to interpretation as “awakes” or “gets awakened.” While I think one ought to understand this ambivalence of the Greek MP form, I don’t really have any objection to understanding EK MESOU GINETAI as “gets removed” (passive) or “gets out of the way” (intransitive/ ergative: the subject may simply leave the center of action or he/she may be forcibly removed by an external agent.I have no quarrel with BDAG’s entry on this passage.BDAG, s.v. GINOMAI: EK T. OURANWN G.6. to make a change of location in space, moveb. EK TINOS (Job 28:2): γ. EK MESOU be removed, Lat. e medio tolli (cp. Ps.-Aeschin., Ep. 12, 6 EK MESOU GENOMENWN EKEINWN; Plut., Timol. 238 [5, 3]; Achilles Tat. 2, 27, 2) 2 Th 2:7 (HFulford, ET 23, 1912, 40f: ‘leave the scene’). Of a voice fr. heaven: EK T. OURANWN G. sound forth fr. heaven (2 Macc 2:21; cp. Da 4:31 Theod.) Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; 9:35; cp. vs. 36.> 2. It should be ‘And now you know what’s ~ ‘, not ‘And you know > what’s now> ~’> I’ve got a lot of translations in front of me, including Lattimore, > who is> not particularly influenced by the English bible translation > tradition. No> one them takes NUN with OIDATE. I’m inclined to trust them on this.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Mar 1 19:36:16 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals On Mar 1, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Webb wrote:> Dear Carl,> > You gave EGEIRW as an example of a verb that can sometimes be > construed as> either middle or passive. But the difference between EGEIRW and > GINOMAI is> that EGEIRW can be transitive, and GINOMAI cannot. HGERQH EK MESOU > could> mean either “got up out of the middle” or “was lifted out from the > middle”.HGERQH is, of course, the aorist of EGEIROMAI. Yes, there is an active EGEIRW, but the primary verb really is the middle; the active form is causative. More often than not we see HGERQH used without any hUPO + genitive agent construction; some would prefer to translate it always as “was raised” and call it some such thing as a “divine passive” (a designation I’ve always thought amusing). I would prefer to English HGERQH as “he rose.” Although this verb is sometimes used in the active in the sense of “erect” a structure, it is most commonly used of persons rising or awaking.Nevertheless I think that there are frequent occasions when we might wish to understand GINOMAI without an agent-construction as essentially passive, as in the petition of the LP: GENHQHTW TO QELHMA SOU (Mt 6:10) — I should note that I think GENHQHTW is simply an alternative form of GENESQW. We could understand this petition as “May your will come to be” — but how is that supposed to happen unless someone obediently performs God’s will? It makes good sense, therefore, to English the petition as “May your w1ll be done.”> Unless there was absolutely no other way the sentence could make > sense, I> can’t see a reason to express GINOMAI EK MESOU as something beyond > (1) “gets> out of the way” or (2) “gets [under his own power] out of the > situation”.> And I think each of those readings makes good sense in and of > itself in 2> Thess. 2:7. For example, looking at option (1):> > The lawless one is going to appear at some future point. There’s only> (MONOS) one thing holding him back: the restrainer (hO KATECWN), > who, at> some future point, will presumably stop restraining, and at which > point the> lawless one will appear. I reckon that the idea of “to stop > restraining” can> be expressed equally well as “to get out of the way” (GINOMAI EK > MESOU).> What’s wrong with that? Particularly in view of the fact that the > writer> personalizes the restrainer by calling him hO KATECWN, not just TO > KATECON,> the presumption is that this personal force has the option of > restraining so> long, and then stopping. If “until he gets out of the way” sounds > like an> unlikely rendering of ARTI hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI, I’d like to hear > your> reason for thinking so. Otherwise I can’t see what would induce me to> imagine another implied actor, who has the supposed role of > removing the> restrainer from the place where he metaphorically stands restraining.> > On the assumption that you’ve encountered the verb GINOMAI in tens of> thousands of instances, I accept your statement it’s not out of the > question> that GINOMAI can occasionally carry have an implicit passive sense. > So once> again, the question I’d have is, wouldn’t that be the last option, > in the> case that a middle sense, “action performed by the subject and > involving the> subject”, didn’t seem possible?We need to distinguish what we understand the Greek formulation to mean and how we choose to English the idea expressed in the Greek formulation. I think that in the context hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI does mean — in the Greek, “until he gets out of the center of things.” That is expressed with maximal economy, and I don’t think that most who want to English it would be satisfied with that formulation. One might use, “until he’s gone” and perhaps that would be sufficient, BUT if the interpreter supposes that this exit of the restrainer comes about through some instrumentality or agency beyond the “restrainer’s” intention, the interpreter may prefer to English the formulation as “until he is removed.” I wouldn’t quarrel with that; I would simply emphasize that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between how we understand the semantic force of the Greek and how we choose to make it intelligible in English.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:01 PM> To: Webb> Cc: ”> Subject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals> > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Webb wrote:> >> >> Dear Oun,>> 1. Difference btw active vs passive — may it have something to do>> with the nature of ‘middle’ in Gk?> > What it really has to do with is the fact that the forms labeled> middle-passive and passive (QH) all, when intransitive, bear the> sense “enter into state X.” The nearest English equivalent is “get” +> predicate word (which may be a participle): GINOMAI is the> quintessential middle-passive verb that can quite readily be> Englished (usually) as “get” or “come to be” with a predicate word.> >> 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).> > Of course GENHTAI can’t mean that something else acts on the subject> of the verb — but that may be implicit as it is always implicit in a> MP form: GINETAI EK MESOU means “gets to be out-of-the-way, out-of-> the-scene, off-the-table, out-of-this-world, out-of-this-life.” Just> as EGEIRETAI means “enters into a waking (or upright) state” it is> open to interpretation as “awakes” or “gets awakened.” While I think> one ought to understand this ambivalence of the Greek MP form, I> don’t really have any objection to understanding EK MESOU GINETAI as> “gets removed” (passive) or “gets out of the way” (intransitive/> ergative: the subject may simply leave the center of action or he/she> may be forcibly removed by an external agent.> > I have no quarrel with BDAG’s entry on this passage.> > BDAG, s.v. GINOMAI: EK T. OURANWN G.> 6. to make a change of location in space, move> b. EK TINOS (Job 28:2): γ. EK MESOU be removed, Lat. e medio tolli> (cp. Ps.-Aeschin., Ep. 12, 6 EK MESOU GENOMENWN EKEINWN; Plut.,> Timol. 238 [5, 3]; Achilles Tat. 2, 27, 2) 2 Th 2:7 (HFulford, ET 23,> 1912, 40f: ‘leave the scene’). Of a voice fr. heaven: EK T.> OURANWN G. sound forth fr. heaven (2 Macc 2:21; cp. Da 4:31 Theod.)> Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; 9:35; cp. vs. 36.> > >> 2. It should be ‘And now you know what’s ~ ‘, not ‘And you know>> what’s now>> ~’>> I’ve got a lot of translations in front of me, including Lattimore,>> who is>> not particularly influenced by the English bible translation>> tradition. No>> one them takes NUN with OIDATE. I’m inclined to trust them on this.

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Webb webb at selftest.net
Thu Mar 1 19:55:50 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Dear Carl,Thanks for your comments. There’s still a question that I would value yourtake on: Supposing a context where somebody is pictured as temporarilystanding in somebody else’s way, blocking his progress, does ARTI hEWS EKMESOU GENHTAI sound like a natural way to express the idea, “until he getsout of the way”? Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:36 PMTo: WebbCc: ”Subject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposalsOn Mar 1, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Webb wrote:> Dear Carl,> > You gave EGEIRW as an example of a verb that can sometimes be > construed as> either middle or passive. But the difference between EGEIRW and > GINOMAI is> that EGEIRW can be transitive, and GINOMAI cannot. HGERQH EK MESOU > could> mean either “got up out of the middle” or “was lifted out from the > middle”.HGERQH is, of course, the aorist of EGEIROMAI. Yes, there is an active EGEIRW, but the primary verb really is the middle; the active form is causative. More often than not we see HGERQH used without any hUPO + genitive agent construction; some would prefer to translate it always as “was raised” and call it some such thing as a “divine passive” (a designation I’ve always thought amusing). I would prefer to English HGERQH as “he rose.” Although this verb is sometimes used in the active in the sense of “erect” a structure, it is most commonly used of persons rising or awaking.Nevertheless I think that there are frequent occasions when we might wish to understand GINOMAI without an agent-construction as essentially passive, as in the petition of the LP: GENHQHTW TO QELHMA SOU (Mt 6:10) — I should note that I think GENHQHTW is simply an alternative form of GENESQW. We could understand this petition as “May your will come to be” — but how is that supposed to happen unless someone obediently performs God’s will? It makes good sense, therefore, to English the petition as “May your w1ll be done.”> Unless there was absolutely no other way the sentence could make > sense, I> can’t see a reason to express GINOMAI EK MESOU as something beyond > (1) “gets> out of the way” or (2) “gets [under his own power] out of the > situation”.> And I think each of those readings makes good sense in and of > itself in 2> Thess. 2:7. For example, looking at option (1):> > The lawless one is going to appear at some future point. There’s only> (MONOS) one thing holding him back: the restrainer (hO KATECWN), > who, at> some future point, will presumably stop restraining, and at which > point the> lawless one will appear. I reckon that the idea of “to stop > restraining” can> be expressed equally well as “to get out of the way” (GINOMAI EK > MESOU).> What’s wrong with that? Particularly in view of the fact that the > writer> personalizes the restrainer by calling him hO KATECWN, not just TO > KATECON,> the presumption is that this personal force has the option of > restraining so> long, and then stopping. If “until he gets out of the way” sounds > like an> unlikely rendering of ARTI hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI, I’d like to hear > your> reason for thinking so. Otherwise I can’t see what would induce me to> imagine another implied actor, who has the supposed role of > removing the> restrainer from the place where he metaphorically stands restraining.> > On the assumption that you’ve encountered the verb GINOMAI in tens of> thousands of instances, I accept your statement it’s not out of the > question> that GINOMAI can occasionally carry have an implicit passive sense. > So once> again, the question I’d have is, wouldn’t that be the last option, > in the> case that a middle sense, “action performed by the subject and > involving the> subject”, didn’t seem possible?We need to distinguish what we understand the Greek formulation to mean and how we choose to English the idea expressed in the Greek formulation. I think that in the context hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI does mean — in the Greek, “until he gets out of the center of things.” That is expressed with maximal economy, and I don’t think that most who want to English it would be satisfied with that formulation. One might use, “until he’s gone” and perhaps that would be sufficient, BUT if the interpreter supposes that this exit of the restrainer comes about through some instrumentality or agency beyond the “restrainer’s” intention, the interpreter may prefer to English the formulation as “until he is removed.” I wouldn’t quarrel with that; I would simply emphasize that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between how we understand the semantic force of the Greek and how we choose to make it intelligible in English.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:01 PM> To: Webb> Cc: ”> Subject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals> > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Webb wrote:> >> >> Dear Oun,>> 1. Difference btw active vs passive — may it have something to do>> with the nature of ‘middle’ in Gk?> > What it really has to do with is the fact that the forms labeled> middle-passive and passive (QH) all, when intransitive, bear the> sense “enter into state X.” The nearest English equivalent is “get” +> predicate word (which may be a participle): GINOMAI is the> quintessential middle-passive verb that can quite readily be> Englished (usually) as “get” or “come to be” with a predicate word.> >> 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).> > Of course GENHTAI can’t mean that something else acts on the subject> of the verb — but that may be implicit as it is always implicit in a> MP form: GINETAI EK MESOU means “gets to be out-of-the-way, out-of-> the-scene, off-the-table, out-of-this-world, out-of-this-life.” Just> as EGEIRETAI means “enters into a waking (or upright) state” it is> open to interpretation as “awakes” or “gets awakened.” While I think> one ought to understand this ambivalence of the Greek MP form, I> don’t really have any objection to understanding EK MESOU GINETAI as> “gets removed” (passive) or “gets out of the way” (intransitive/> ergative: the subject may simply leave the center of action or he/she> may be forcibly removed by an external agent.> > I have no quarrel with BDAG’s entry on this passage.> > BDAG, s.v. GINOMAI: EK T. OURANWN G.> 6. to make a change of location in space, move> b. EK TINOS (Job 28:2): γ. EK MESOU be removed, Lat. e medio tolli> (cp. Ps.-Aeschin., Ep. 12, 6 EK MESOU GENOMENWN EKEINWN; Plut.,> Timol. 238 [5, 3]; Achilles Tat. 2, 27, 2) 2 Th 2:7 (HFulford, ET 23,> 1912, 40f: ‘leave the scene’). Of a voice fr. heaven: EK T.> OURANWN G. sound forth fr. heaven (2 Macc 2:21; cp. Da 4:31 Theod.)> Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; 9:35; cp. vs. 36.> > >> 2. It should be ‘And now you know what’s ~ ‘, not ‘And you know>> what’s now>> ~’>> I’ve got a lot of translations in front of me, including Lattimore,>> who is>> not particularly influenced by the English bible translation>> tradition. No>> one them takes NUN with OIDATE. I’m inclined to trust them on this.

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals frjsilver at optonline.net frjsilver at optonline.net
Thu Mar 1 20:09:02 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Dear Friends –Carl Conrad is spot on here.Consider how hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO is variously rendered: ‘was made flesh’, ‘became flesh’, etc.It’s clear that GINOMAI is a *very* flexible verb. It ranges from ‘become’ to ‘happen’ to ‘made to be’, and so its wide-ranging semantic field must be plowed in furrows of context without hard and fast minimums of meaning which might belong in some other row of seeds.Latin, on the other hand, is rather rigid in this regard, and depends very heavily on inflections of _facere_ to express nuances of Greek GINOMAI, almost all of which*must* be understood and translated as passives. For well or ill, there’s an unmistakeable and almost unavoidable Latin influence on our translations into English of scriptural, liturgical, and virtually all the Christian texts of antiquity. Remaining aware of this Latinitis lurking in the background of most of our familiar English-language experience of these words, we have to resist it and rely only to the texts at hand without appealing –even subconsciously — to intermediate translations or their influence. BTW: Please don’t think of me as accusing anyone of these faults — they’re merely my observations on the problem in the abstract.KALE TESSARAKOSTE!Father James SilverMonk JamesOrthodox Church in America—– Original Message —–From: “Carl W. Conrad” Date: Thursday, March 1, 2007 7:36 pmSubject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposalsTo: Webb Cc: ” > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Webb wrote:> > > Dear Carl,> >> > You gave EGEIRW as an example of a verb that can sometimes be > > construed as> > either middle or passive. But the difference between EGEIRW > and > > GINOMAI is> > that EGEIRW can be transitive, and GINOMAI cannot. HGERQH EK > MESOU > > could> > mean either “got up out of the middle” or “was lifted out from > the > > middle”.> > HGERQH is, of course, the aorist of EGEIROMAI. Yes, there is an > active EGEIRW, but the primary verb really is the middle; the > active > form is causative. More often than not we see HGERQH used > without any > hUPO + genitive agent construction; some would prefer to > translate it > always as “was raised” and call it some such thing as a “divine > passive” (a designation I’ve always thought amusing). I would > prefer > to English HGERQH as “he rose.” Although this verb is sometimes > used > in the active in the sense of “erect” a structure, it is most > commonly used of persons rising or awaking.> > Nevertheless I think that there are frequent occasions when we > might > wish to understand GINOMAI without an agent-construction as > essentially passive, as in the petition of the LP: GENHQHTW TO > QELHMA SOU (Mt 6:10) — I should note that I think GENHQHTW is > simply > an alternative form of GENESQW. We could understand this > petition as > “May your will come to be” — but how is that supposed to happen > > unless someone obediently performs God’s will? It makes good > sense, > therefore, to English the petition as “May your w1ll be done.”> > > Unless there was absolutely no other way the sentence could > make > > sense, I> > can’t see a reason to express GINOMAI EK MESOU as something > beyond > > (1) “gets> > out of the way” or (2) “gets [under his own power] out of the > > situation”.> > And I think each of those readings makes good sense in and of > > itself in 2> > Thess. 2:7. For example, looking at option (1):> >> > The lawless one is going to appear at some future point. > There’s only> > (MONOS) one thing holding him back: the restrainer (hO > KATECWN), > > who, at> > some future point, will presumably stop restraining, and at > which > > point the> > lawless one will appear. I reckon that the idea of “to stop > > restraining” can> > be expressed equally well as “to get out of the way” (GINOMAI > EK > > MESOU).> > What’s wrong with that? Particularly in view of the fact that > the > > writer> > personalizes the restrainer by calling him hO KATECWN, not > just TO > > KATECON,> > the presumption is that this personal force has the option of > > restraining so> > long, and then stopping. If “until he gets out of the way” > sounds > > like an> > unlikely rendering of ARTI hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI, I’d like to > hear > > your> > reason for thinking so. Otherwise I can’t see what would > induce me to> > imagine another implied actor, who has the supposed role of > > removing the> > restrainer from the place where he metaphorically stands > restraining.>> > On the assumption that you’ve encountered the verb GINOMAI in > tens of> > thousands of instances, I accept your statement it’s not out > of the > > question> > that GINOMAI can occasionally carry have an implicit passive > sense. > > So once> > again, the question I’d have is, wouldn’t that be the last > option, > > in the> > case that a middle sense, “action performed by the subject and > > > involving the> > subject”, didn’t seem possible?> > We need to distinguish what we understand the Greek formulation > to > mean and how we choose to English the idea expressed in the > Greek > formulation. I think that in the context hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI > does > mean — in the Greek, “until he gets out of the center of > things.” > That is expressed with maximal economy, and I don’t think that > most > who want to English it would be satisfied with that formulation. > One > might use, “until he’s gone” and perhaps that would be > sufficient, > BUT if the interpreter supposes that this exit of the restrainer > > comes about through some instrumentality or agency beyond the > “restrainer’s” intention, the interpreter may prefer to English > the > formulation as “until he is removed.” I wouldn’t quarrel with > that; I > would simply emphasize that there is not a one-to-one > correspondence > between how we understand the semantic force of the Greek and > how we > choose to make it intelligible in English.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> > > —–Original Message—–> > From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:01 PM> > To: Webb> > Cc: ”> > Subject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals> >> >> > On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Webb wrote:> >> >>> >> Dear Oun,> >> 1. Difference btw active vs passive — may it have something > to do> >> with the nature of ‘middle’ in Gk?> >> > What it really has to do with is the fact that the forms labeled> > middle-passive and passive (QH) all, when intransitive, bear the> > sense “enter into state X.” The nearest English equivalent is > “get” +> > predicate word (which may be a participle): GINOMAI is the> > quintessential middle-passive verb that can quite readily be> > Englished (usually) as “get” or “come to be” with a predicate word.> >> >> 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).> >> > Of course GENHTAI can’t mean that something else acts on the subject> > of the verb — but that may be implicit as it is always > implicit in a> > MP form: GINETAI EK MESOU means “gets to be out-of-the-way, > out-of-> > the-scene, off-the-table, out-of-this-world, out-of-this-> life.” Just> > as EGEIRETAI means “enters into a waking (or upright) state” > it is> > open to interpretation as “awakes” or “gets awakened.” While I think> > one ought to understand this ambivalence of the Greek MP form, I> > don’t really have any objection to understanding EK MESOU > GINETAI as> > “gets removed” (passive) or “gets out of the way” (intransitive/> > ergative: the subject may simply leave the center of action or > he/she> may be forcibly removed by an external agent.> >> > I have no quarrel with BDAG’s entry on this passage.> >> > BDAG, s.v. GINOMAI: EK T. OURANWN G.> > 6. to make a change of location in space, move> > b. EK TINOS (Job 28:2): γ. EK MESOU be removed, Lat. e medio tolli> > (cp. Ps.-Aeschin., Ep. 12, 6 EK MESOU GENOMENWN EKEINWN; Plut.,> > Timol. 238 [5, 3]; Achilles Tat. 2, 27, 2) 2 Th 2:7 (HFulford, > ET 23,> > 1912, 40f: ‘leave the scene’). Of a voice fr. heaven: EK T.> > OURANWN G. sound forth fr. heaven (2 Macc 2:21; cp. Da 4:31 Theod.)> > Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; 9:35; cp. vs. 36.> >> >> >> 2. It should be ‘And now you know what’s ~ ‘, not ‘And you know> >> what’s now> >> ~’> >> I’ve got a lot of translations in front of me, including Lattimore,> >> who is> >> not particularly influenced by the English bible translation> >> tradition. No> >> one them takes NUN with OIDATE. I’m inclined to trust them on this.> > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Mar 2 04:52:38 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:55 PM, Webb wrote:> Dear Carl,> Thanks for your comments. There’s still a question that I would > value your> take on: Supposing a context where somebody is pictured as temporarily> standing in somebody else’s way, blocking his progress, does ARTI > hEWS EK> MESOU GENHTAI sound like a natural way to express the idea, “until > he gets> out of the way”?(a) I think ARTI belongs to KATECWN, NOT to the hEWS clause.(b) Perhaps “leaves the scene” (as suggested in BDAG) might do, but that phrase and “gets out of the way” both suggest very strongly that hO KATECWN ARTI “leaves the scene” or “gets out of the way” voluntarily, and I think that is probably not intended. I think “is gone” is more neutral”; “is no longer present” might be better yet. I can see why you don’t like “until he is removed” — because that seems unambiguously passive, but if “removed” is a predicate adjective rather than part of a periphrastic verb form, then it’s better English (I think). How about “until he is out of the way”?I do think that GINOMAI and its various usages brings into focus the distinctive problem of the Greek “middle-passive” and why it is so apparently difficult to understand for those of us (most, I think) who’ve learned a grammar of voice that is essentially bipolar. We have been taught to think that verbs are transitive, in which case they are either active or passive, or they are intransitive. And we approach the Greek middle-passive forms with that notion in mind and we want to “disambiguate” the middle-passive forms we confront in a Greek text and drop each in one or the other category: middle or passive. But matters are more complicated: transitive verbs in the middle voice can take an objective complement/object when the verb’s subject is an agent, but intransitive middle-passives indicate alteration of condition or coming into a new state. Difficulties arise when the alteration of condition or the coming into a new state SEEMS to depend upon an external agent or instrumentality. If that agent or instrumentality is expressed in a hUPO + genitive (or equivalent) or instrumental-dative construction, then we don’t hesitate to understand the semantic force as passive and translate the verb form into a passive expression in the target language. BUT the Greek middle-passive form is in itself ambivalent. EGENETO means “came to be” — whether as an existential verb in the sense “entered into existence” or “came about/happened” or as a copula in the sense “got to be X” as in our phrase now under consideration, EK MESOU GENESQAI. ESTAQH, like ESTH (of which ESTAQH is a later form) means “came into a standing position (from a seated or lying position)” or “came to a standstill (from being in motion).” But we tend to look for a passive expression to convey the sense of ESTAQH — something like “it was made to stand” or “it was stationed.” But only an agent or instrumental qualifying adverbial expression can trip the balance unmistakably toward a passive interpretation of the form, and many traditionalists will endeavor to explain all MP forms — both the MAI/ SAI/TAI and the -QH- forms as falling unambiguously into either a “middle” or a “passive” category. I don’t like that approach to understanding and translation of these forms; its worst consequence has been the categorization of a great number of middle-passive forms as “deponents” — a term that I think serves primarily to assist the translation process while it conceals or obscures the semantic force of the verb form in Greek.> > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:36 PM> To: Webb> Cc: ”> Subject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals> > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Webb wrote:> >> Dear Carl,>> >> You gave EGEIRW as an example of a verb that can sometimes be>> construed as>> either middle or passive. But the difference between EGEIRW and>> GINOMAI is>> that EGEIRW can be transitive, and GINOMAI cannot. HGERQH EK MESOU>> could>> mean either “got up out of the middle” or “was lifted out from the>> middle”.> > HGERQH is, of course, the aorist of EGEIROMAI. Yes, there is an> active EGEIRW, but the primary verb really is the middle; the active> form is causative. More often than not we see HGERQH used without any> hUPO + genitive agent construction; some would prefer to translate it> always as “was raised” and call it some such thing as a “divine> passive” (a designation I’ve always thought amusing). I would prefer> to English HGERQH as “he rose.” Although this verb is sometimes used> in the active in the sense of “erect” a structure, it is most> commonly used of persons rising or awaking.> > Nevertheless I think that there are frequent occasions when we might> wish to understand GINOMAI without an agent-construction as> essentially passive, as in the petition of the LP: GENHQHTW TO> QELHMA SOU (Mt 6:10) — I should note that I think GENHQHTW is simply> an alternative form of GENESQW. We could understand this petition as> “May your will come to be” — but how is that supposed to happen> unless someone obediently performs God’s will? It makes good sense,> therefore, to English the petition as “May your w1ll be done.”> >> Unless there was absolutely no other way the sentence could make>> sense, I>> can’t see a reason to express GINOMAI EK MESOU as something beyond>> (1) “gets>> out of the way” or (2) “gets [under his own power] out of the>> situation”.>> And I think each of those readings makes good sense in and of>> itself in 2>> Thess. 2:7. For example, looking at option (1):>> >> The lawless one is going to appear at some future point. There’s only>> (MONOS) one thing holding him back: the restrainer (hO KATECWN),>> who, at>> some future point, will presumably stop restraining, and at which>> point the>> lawless one will appear. I reckon that the idea of “to stop>> restraining” can>> be expressed equally well as “to get out of the way” (GINOMAI EK>> MESOU).>> What’s wrong with that? Particularly in view of the fact that the>> writer>> personalizes the restrainer by calling him hO KATECWN, not just TO>> KATECON,>> the presumption is that this personal force has the option of>> restraining so>> long, and then stopping. If “until he gets out of the way” sounds>> like an>> unlikely rendering of ARTI hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI, I’d like to hear>> your>> reason for thinking so. Otherwise I can’t see what would induce me to>> imagine another implied actor, who has the supposed role of>> removing the>> restrainer from the place where he metaphorically stands restraining.>> >> On the assumption that you’ve encountered the verb GINOMAI in tens of>> thousands of instances, I accept your statement it’s not out of the>> question>> that GINOMAI can occasionally carry have an implicit passive sense.>> So once>> again, the question I’d have is, wouldn’t that be the last option,>> in the>> case that a middle sense, “action performed by the subject and>> involving the>> subject”, didn’t seem possible?> > We need to distinguish what we understand the Greek formulation to> mean and how we choose to English the idea expressed in the Greek> formulation. I think that in the context hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI does> mean — in the Greek, “until he gets out of the center of things.”> That is expressed with maximal economy, and I don’t think that most> who want to English it would be satisfied with that formulation. One> might use, “until he’s gone” and perhaps that would be sufficient,> BUT if the interpreter supposes that this exit of the restrainer> comes about through some instrumentality or agency beyond the> “restrainer’s” intention, the interpreter may prefer to English the> formulation as “until he is removed.” I wouldn’t quarrel with that; I> would simply emphasize that there is not a one-to-one correspondence> between how we understand the semantic force of the Greek and how we> choose to make it intelligible in English.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> —–Original Message—–>> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:01 PM>> To: Webb>> Cc: ”>> Subject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals>> >> >> On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Webb wrote:>> >>> >>> Dear Oun,>>> 1. Difference btw active vs passive — may it have something to do>>> with the nature of ‘middle’ in Gk?>> >> What it really has to do with is the fact that the forms labeled>> middle-passive and passive (QH) all, when intransitive, bear the>> sense “enter into state X.” The nearest English equivalent is “get” +>> predicate word (which may be a participle): GINOMAI is the>> quintessential middle-passive verb that can quite readily be>> Englished (usually) as “get” or “come to be” with a predicate word.>> >>> 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).>> >> Of course GENHTAI can’t mean that something else acts on the subject>> of the verb — but that may be implicit as it is always implicit in a>> MP form: GINETAI EK MESOU means “gets to be out-of-the-way, out-of->> the-scene, off-the-table, out-of-this-world, out-of-this-life.” Just>> as EGEIRETAI means “enters into a waking (or upright) state” it is>> open to interpretation as “awakes” or “gets awakened.” While I think>> one ought to understand this ambivalence of the Greek MP form, I>> don’t really have any objection to understanding EK MESOU GINETAI as>> “gets removed” (passive) or “gets out of the way” (intransitive/>> ergative: the subject may simply leave the center of action or he/she>> may be forcibly removed by an external agent.>> >> I have no quarrel with BDAG’s entry on this passage.>> >> BDAG, s.v. GINOMAI: EK T. OURANWN G.>> 6. to make a change of location in space, move>> b. EK TINOS (Job 28:2): γ. EK MESOU be removed, Lat. e medio tolli>> (cp. Ps.-Aeschin., Ep. 12, 6 EK MESOU GENOMENWN EKEINWN; Plut.,>> Timol. 238 [5, 3]; Achilles Tat. 2, 27, 2) 2 Th 2:7 (HFulford, ET 23,>> 1912, 40f: ‘leave the scene’). Of a voice fr. heaven: EK T.>> OURANWN G. sound forth fr. heaven (2 Macc 2:21; cp. Da 4:31 Theod.)>> Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; 9:35; cp. vs. 36.>> >> >>> 2. It should be ‘And now you know what’s ~ ‘, not ‘And you know>>> what’s now>>> ~’>>> I’ve got a lot of translations in front of me, including Lattimore,>>> who is>>> not particularly influenced by the English bible translation>>> tradition. No>>> one them takes NUN with OIDATE. I’m inclined to trust them on this.> > > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Mar 2 13:51:54 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals —– 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 MealyCarl 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 inMt 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 GENHTAIThe 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

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Webb webb at selftest.net
Fri Mar 2 14:42:01 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Dear Carl,”Perhaps “leaves the scene” (as suggested in BDAG) might do, but that phrase and “gets out of the way” both suggest very strongly that hO KATECWN ARTI “leaves the scene” or “gets out of the way” voluntarily, and I think that is probably not intended. “Is your sense that hO KATECWN ARTI does not stop restraining “voluntarily”based on the context and/or wider interpretive principles, or on the basisof the grammar and vocabulary of the phrase hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI itself? Iguess that if Paul hadn’t made the restrainer personal, and I had read thatthe impersonal restraining force will restrain hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI, I’dread that as “until it’s out of the way”. But since it is personalized, theassumption that I bring to reading the sentence is that the restrainer canand will restrain as long as he (sic) wishes to do so, and then he will stoprestraining. Unless something specific in the context informs medifferently, I’m going to assume that he’s going to “voluntarily” get out ofthe way. I am reading between the lines that you don’t think the writer would haveexpressed that notion with the words hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI, because GINOMAIindicates not a voluntary change to a new condition or state, but aninvoluntary or at least quasi-involuntary transformation to a new conditionor state. I suppose I, who allow contractions in my translation couldcleverly split the difference by rendering it as “until he’s gotten out ofthe way”–which expands to “until he has gotten out of the way” and “untilhe is gotten out of the way”. But I guess it would really help me if youcould say how you think the writer could more naturally have said “until hegets out of the way” in Greek, if a voluntary cessation of his restrainingaction had been what he had had in mind.I still am laboring under the assumption that GINOMAI can quite naturally beused when the subject is, in Iver’s terminology, the implied ACTOR. Forexamples of GINOMAI being used where people are commanded to becomesomething, see Mt. 10:16; 18:3 (ambiguous); 24:44; Lk. 6:36; 12:40; Jn20:27; 1 Cor. 4:16; 10:32; 11:1; 15:58; Gal. 4:12; Eph. 4:32; 5:1; Phil.3:17; Col. 3:15; Jas 1:22; 3:1; 1 Pet. 1:15; Rev. 2:10; 3:2. For examples of GINOMAI being used where people are said to come, or not tocome, into such and such a state, for which change of state they themselveswould implicitly have been responsible, see Mk 1:4; Luke 13:2, 4; 16:11, 12;Acts 7:52; Eph. 2:13 (ambiguous); Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 2:5, 7, 10, 14(ambiguous); Jas 2:4.”How about “until he is out of the way”?”I’m open to that, when you’re finished persuading me that “gets out of theway” conveys too active a sense.”Difficulties arise when the alteration of condition or the coming into anew state SEEMS to depend upon an external agent or instrumentality. “As I said, there is no such difficulty for me when I read 2 Thess. 2:7.Somebody’s now holding somebody back, and unless something tells meotherwise, I’m going to continue to assume that he’s going to do so until hedecides to stop holding that somebody back. Webb Mealy> > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:36 PM> To: Webb> Cc: ”> Subject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals> > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Webb wrote:> >> Dear Carl,>> >> You gave EGEIRW as an example of a verb that can sometimes be>> construed as>> either middle or passive. But the difference between EGEIRW and>> GINOMAI is>> that EGEIRW can be transitive, and GINOMAI cannot. HGERQH EK MESOU>> could>> mean either “got up out of the middle” or “was lifted out from the>> middle”.> > HGERQH is, of course, the aorist of EGEIROMAI. Yes, there is an> active EGEIRW, but the primary verb really is the middle; the active> form is causative. More often than not we see HGERQH used without any> hUPO + genitive agent construction; some would prefer to translate it> always as “was raised” and call it some such thing as a “divine> passive” (a designation I’ve always thought amusing). I would prefer> to English HGERQH as “he rose.” Although this verb is sometimes used> in the active in the sense of “erect” a structure, it is most> commonly used of persons rising or awaking.> > Nevertheless I think that there are frequent occasions when we might> wish to understand GINOMAI without an agent-construction as> essentially passive, as in the petition of the LP: GENHQHTW TO> QELHMA SOU (Mt 6:10) — I should note that I think GENHQHTW is simply> an alternative form of GENESQW. We could understand this petition as> “May your will come to be” — but how is that supposed to happen> unless someone obediently performs God’s will? It makes good sense,> therefore, to English the petition as “May your w1ll be done.”> >> Unless there was absolutely no other way the sentence could make>> sense, I>> can’t see a reason to express GINOMAI EK MESOU as something beyond>> (1) “gets>> out of the way” or (2) “gets [under his own power] out of the>> situation”.>> And I think each of those readings makes good sense in and of>> itself in 2>> Thess. 2:7. For example, looking at option (1):>> >> The lawless one is going to appear at some future point. There’s only>> (MONOS) one thing holding him back: the restrainer (hO KATECWN),>> who, at>> some future point, will presumably stop restraining, and at which>> point the>> lawless one will appear. I reckon that the idea of “to stop>> restraining” can>> be expressed equally well as “to get out of the way” (GINOMAI EK>> MESOU).>> What’s wrong with that? Particularly in view of the fact that the>> writer>> personalizes the restrainer by calling him hO KATECWN, not just TO>> KATECON,>> the presumption is that this personal force has the option of>> restraining so>> long, and then stopping. If “until he gets out of the way” sounds>> like an>> unlikely rendering of ARTI hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI, I’d like to hear>> your>> reason for thinking so. Otherwise I can’t see what would induce me to>> imagine another implied actor, who has the supposed role of>> removing the>> restrainer from the place where he metaphorically stands restraining.>> >> On the assumption that you’ve encountered the verb GINOMAI in tens of>> thousands of instances, I accept your statement it’s not out of the>> question>> that GINOMAI can occasionally carry have an implicit passive sense.>> So once>> again, the question I’d have is, wouldn’t that be the last option,>> in the>> case that a middle sense, “action performed by the subject and>> involving the>> subject”, didn’t seem possible?> > We need to distinguish what we understand the Greek formulation to> mean and how we choose to English the idea expressed in the Greek> formulation. I think that in the context hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI does> mean — in the Greek, “until he gets out of the center of things.”> That is expressed with maximal economy, and I don’t think that most> who want to English it would be satisfied with that formulation. One> might use, “until he’s gone” and perhaps that would be sufficient,> BUT if the interpreter supposes that this exit of the restrainer> comes about through some instrumentality or agency beyond the> “restrainer’s” intention, the interpreter may prefer to English the> formulation as “until he is removed.” I wouldn’t quarrel with that; I> would simply emphasize that there is not a one-to-one correspondence> between how we understand the semantic force of the Greek and how we> choose to make it intelligible in English.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> —–Original Message—–>> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:01 PM>> To: Webb>> Cc: ”>> Subject: Re: [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals>> >> >> On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Webb wrote:>> >>> >>> Dear Oun,>>> 1. Difference btw active vs passive — may it have something to do>>> with the nature of ‘middle’ in Gk?>> >> What it really has to do with is the fact that the forms labeled>> middle-passive and passive (QH) all, when intransitive, bear the>> sense “enter into state X.” The nearest English equivalent is “get” +>> predicate word (which may be a participle): GINOMAI is the>> quintessential middle-passive verb that can quite readily be>> Englished (usually) as “get” or “come to be” with a predicate word.>> >>> 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).>> >> Of course GENHTAI can’t mean that something else acts on the subject>> of the verb — but that may be implicit as it is always implicit in a>> MP form: GINETAI EK MESOU means “gets to be out-of-the-way, out-of->> the-scene, off-the-table, out-of-this-world, out-of-this-life.” Just>> as EGEIRETAI means “enters into a waking (or upright) state” it is>> open to interpretation as “awakes” or “gets awakened.” While I think>> one ought to understand this ambivalence of the Greek MP form, I>> don’t really have any objection to understanding EK MESOU GINETAI as>> “gets removed” (passive) or “gets out of the way” (intransitive/>> ergative: the subject may simply leave the center of action or he/she>> may be forcibly removed by an external agent.>> >> I have no quarrel with BDAG’s entry on this passage.>> >> BDAG, s.v. GINOMAI: EK T. OURANWN G.>> 6. to make a change of location in space, move>> b. EK TINOS (Job 28:2): γ. EK MESOU be removed, Lat. e medio tolli>> (cp. Ps.-Aeschin., Ep. 12, 6 EK MESOU GENOMENWN EKEINWN; Plut.,>> Timol. 238 [5, 3]; Achilles Tat. 2, 27, 2) 2 Th 2:7 (HFulford, ET 23,>> 1912, 40f: ‘leave the scene’). Of a voice fr. heaven: EK T.>> OURANWN G. sound forth fr. heaven (2 Macc 2:21; cp. Da 4:31 Theod.)>> Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; 9:35; cp. vs. 36.>> >> >>> 2. It should be ‘And now you know what’s ~ ‘, not ‘And you know>>> what’s now>>> ~’>>> I’ve got a lot of translations in front of me, including Lattimore,>>> who is>>> not particularly influenced by the English bible translation>>> tradition. No>>> one them takes NUN with OIDATE. I’m inclined to trust them on this.> > > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Mar 2 16:35:25 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Iver Larsen wrote:> > 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”.> HH: I am not sure that the agent is not the restrainer. You seem to argue that the the subject of GINOMAI cannot be the actor, but I do not understand that to be the case. Even if we limit the idea to “be out of the way,” so that the verb is neutral, it still seems that the restrainer could be the subject: The one restraining will do so until he is out of the way.” But my reading of the lexicons suggests that the subject could clearly be the actor. LSJ under the verb gives an example where GENOU PROS TINA means to “go to so-and-so.” That seems significant in that the subject “goes.”Under MESOS in LSJ there is the example of EN MESWi EINAI TOU SUMMEIXEI as “to stand in the way of.” If EINAI can imply “to be in the midst to oppose,” it seems that GINOMAI with EK MESOU could imply “to go out of the midst,” or “to get out of the way.” Carl has already cited BAGD or BADG, where a meaning suggested for GINOMAI EK MESOU in 2 Thess 2:7 is “leave the scene.” That is equivalent to “get out of the way.” I think the latter is better, but the passive idea of “be removed,” also cited in the lexicon by Carl,” remains a possibility too.GINOMAI sometimes takes the translation “comes.” BAGD gives the example where a voice FWNH EGENETO EK TWN OURANWN implies that a voice sounded forth from heaven.KJV Mark 1:11 And there CAME a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.My experience is that verbs which can be translated as “come” can often also be translated as “go,” as the lexicon suggests GINOMAI can be understood.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Mar 2 16:46:57 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals On Mar 2, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Webb wrote:> Dear Carl,> > “Perhaps “leaves the scene” (as suggested in BDAG) might do, but> that phrase and “gets out of the way” both suggest very strongly that> hO KATECWN ARTI “leaves the scene” or “gets out of the way”> voluntarily, and I think that is probably not intended. “> > Is your sense that hO KATECWN ARTI does not stop restraining > “voluntarily”> based on the context and/or wider interpretive principles, or on > the basis> of the grammar and vocabulary of the phrase hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI > itself? I> guess that if Paul hadn’t made the restrainer personal, and I had > read that> the impersonal restraining force will restrain hEWS EK MESOU > GENHTAI, I’d> read that as “until it’s out of the way”. But since it is > personalized, the> assumption that I bring to reading the sentence is that the > restrainer can> and will restrain as long as he (sic) wishes to do so, and then he > will stop> restraining. Unless something specific in the context informs me> differently, I’m going to assume that he’s going to “voluntarily” > get out of> the way.> I am reading between the lines that you don’t think the writer > would have> expressed that notion with the words hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI, because > GINOMAI> indicates not a voluntary change to a new condition or state, but an> involuntary or at least quasi-involuntary transformation to a new > condition> or state. I suppose I, who allow contractions in my translation could> cleverly split the difference by rendering it as “until he’s gotten > out of> the way”–which expands to “until he has gotten out of the way” and > “until> he is gotten out of the way”. But I guess it would really help me > if you> could say how you think the writer could more naturally have said > “until he> gets out of the way” in Greek, if a voluntary cessation of his > restraining> action had been what he had had in mind.> I still am laboring under the assumption that GINOMAI can quite > naturally be> used when the subject is, in Iver’s terminology, the implied ACTOR. > For> examples of GINOMAI being used where people are commanded to become> something, see Mt. 10:16; 18:3 (ambiguous); 24:44; Lk. 6:36; 12:40; Jn> 20:27; 1 Cor. 4:16; 10:32; 11:1; 15:58; Gal. 4:12; Eph. 4:32; 5:1; > Phil.> 3:17; Col. 3:15; Jas 1:22; 3:1; 1 Pet. 1:15; Rev. 2:10; 3:2.> For examples of GINOMAI being used where people are said to come, > or not to> come, into such and such a state, for which change of state they > themselves> would implicitly have been responsible, see Mk 1:4; Luke 13:2, 4; > 16:11, 12;> Acts 7:52; Eph. 2:13 (ambiguous); Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 2:5, > 7, 10, 14> (ambiguous); Jas 2:4.> > “How about “until he is out of the way”?”> > I’m open to that, when you’re finished persuading me that “gets out > of the> way” conveys too active a sense.> > “Difficulties arise when the alteration of condition or the coming > into a> new state SEEMS to depend upon an external agent or instrumentality. “> > As I said, there is no such difficulty for me when I read 2 Thess. > 2:7.> Somebody’s now holding somebody back, and unless something tells me> otherwise, I’m going to continue to assume that he’s going to do so > until he> decides to stop holding that somebody back.You are much more confident than I am of grasping what this author is saying — between the lines, it seems to me, since it appears that there are unexpressed shared assumptions between the author and the audience for whom he writes. I really don’t quite understand what is being said here, nor why there is the shift from the neuter KATECON to the masculine KATECWN. There doesn’t seem to be a textual problem but I have to say that I’m not wholly convinced that the text we have is quite right. I simply think there’s too much here that calls for speculation in an area of relative obscurity.I’m content that GINOMAI can be used of voluntary change by the subject/actor, e.g. Mt 6:16 hOTAN DE NHSTEUHTE, MH GENESQE hWS hOI hUPOKRITAI … That pretty clearly involves a choice of behavior. I think what bothers me most about any VOLUNTARY sense of GENHTAI EK MESOU is the phrase EK MESOU. I may well be wrong, but my intuitive sense is that it savors more of “removal” than of “withdrawal.”More natural expressions? Some form of EXERCOMAI, e.g. EXELQHi, would fill the bill very well, it seems to me — or EKBAINW, e.g. EKBHi, or EKPOREUOMAI (which doesn’t appear in the aorist in the GNT), or EKLEIPW, e.g. EKLIPHiThe most “neutral” expression still seems to me “until he’s out of the way.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Webb webb at selftest.net
Fri Mar 2 20:06:52 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] Does blasphemeo always carry the meaning of speaking? Dear Iver, My comments to Carl Conrad at least partially address your comments aboutthe semantics of active versus passive. In 2 Th 2:7 hO KATECWN ARTI hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI “The subject and Patient is hO KATECWN. This “restrainer” will change fromthe state of being in the midst (of the evil world) to a state of beingremoved to somewhere else not specified.” I don’t even begin to go down the path you are taking. On the face of it, EKMESOU GENHTAI simply means (or may mean–Lattimore is a pretty heavy hitter,and I don’t write him off) to me that the restrainer ends up out of the wayof the revelation of lawless one. He restrains, and then he no longerrestrains; he stands in the way (EN MESWi), then he steps/gets/gets to beout of the way (EK MESOU). If the writer had intended to say that therestrainer was going to leave the world, he could with the greatest of easehave said, hO KATECWN ARTI hEWS EK TOU KOSMOU [TOUTOU] GENHTAI. To go fromMESOS to KOSMOS strikes me as a vast interpretive leap, one which finds novisible launching pad in the Greek of the current passage. But maybe youknow something I don’t. “Nor is it specified who does the removing, but from the broader Biblicalcontext we can deduce who the Agent is, and it is not hO KATECWN.” By all means contact me off list if you have some wisdom for me about therestrainer’s relationship to the world and to the lawless one that doesn’thave to do with Greek as such. I’m interested in anything that will shedmore light on this intriguing passage. Webb Mealy

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] Does blasphemeo always carry the meaning of speaking?

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Mar 3 09:26:44 EST 2007

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals [] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals —– Original Message —– Webb said:….> Unless something specific in the context informs me> differently, I’m going to assume that he’s going to “voluntarily” get out of> the way.The interpretation of any text involves a number of assumptions. As context I would include verses 2:1-5 so that this section revolves around hHMWN EPISUNAGWGH EP’ AUTON (our gathering together with/to him) as well as events before and after.The audience was concerned that somehow this gathering of the believers had already happened, so Paul says no, it hasn’t.Paul says in v. 6 that the readers know the identity of TO KATECON, but we don’t know for sure, since Paul is not clearly identifying the referent of either TO KATECON or hO KATECWN. Our assumptions about these referents is what underly our interpretation of the passage. Since you don’t want to go down the road I am taking, it looks like we have different theological/eschatological assumptions.> I still am laboring under the assumption that GINOMAI can quite naturally be> used when the subject is, in Iver’s terminology, the implied ACTOR. For> examples of GINOMAI being used where people are commanded to become> something, see Mt. 10:16; 18:3 (ambiguous); 24:44; Lk. 6:36; 12:40; Jn> 20:27; 1 Cor. 4:16; 10:32; 11:1; 15:58; Gal. 4:12; Eph. 4:32; 5:1; Phil.> 3:17; Col. 3:15; Jas 1:22; 3:1; 1 Pet. 1:15; Rev. 2:10; 3:2.Sometimes a grammatical subject may correspond to more than one semantic role. This is quite common with Greek middle verbs, almost a defining characteristic. In a verb like “rise up” the subject may be both Agent and Patient at the same time, although the Patient role is more in focus than the Agent. The subject is definitely the Patient, and it may or may not be the Agent also. For GINOMAI, I still prefer to describe the semantic frame as having a Patient as the primary and basic role. The focus is on the new state that the subject enters into, not on how that state was or will be achieved. In some cases, especially with imperatives, it is understood that the subject is in some way involved in achieving this new state.> For examples of GINOMAI being used where people are said to come, or not to> come, into such and such a state, for which change of state they themselves> would implicitly have been responsible, see Mk 1:4; Luke 13:2, 4; 16:11, 12;> Acts 7:52; Eph. 2:13 (ambiguous); Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 2:5, 7, 10, 14> (ambiguous); Jas 2:4.They may be implicitly responsible, but not necessarily solely or primarily responsible. The focus is still on something coming into being rather than who caused it to come into being. In that respect GINOMAI is different from verbs for coming and going.Mk 1:4 talks about John “appearing” in the desert. (The RSV and TEV “appear” catches the nuance better than NIV’s “came”). Probably God and the Holy Spirit are considered primarily responsible.In Luke 13:2,4 the focus is on these people being described as sinners, not whether they themselves were responsible for that state. This applies to all the citations. The focus is on describing a state or a change of state.Therefore, the only thing we can deduce from the grammar of 2 Th 2:7 and the semantics of GINOMAI is that some time in the future hO KATECWN will be out of the way. How this is going to happen and whether or not the subject is responsible for this change of state or not goes into pragmatics and inferences made on the basis of the assumed reference of hO KATECWN and TO KATECON.Iver Larsen

[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals[] 2 Thess. 2:6-7–two proposals