The Rapture

End Times
User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Rapture

Post by Paidion » Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:36 pm

I think what I took away from Conrad's article is that he would disagree with your conclusion.
Which conclusion? Do you mean my statement that in Hellenistic Greek, in some tenses, the passive voice is distinct from the middle voice? That is not a conclusion; that is a grammatical fact.

William D. Mounce, author of Basics of Biblical Greek summarizes the matter in chapter 9, page 156.
William D. Mounce wrote:In the present tense, the middle and the passive are the same form. In the future, the middle is distinct from both the active and the passive
The fact is that in the future tense, the middle voice employs the future active stem, whereas the passive voice employs the aorist passive stem (though the endings are identical).
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

DanielGracely
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: The Rapture

Post by DanielGracely » Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:05 pm

Hi backwoodsman,

Based on our last exchange about the Trinity, I felt you were unwilling to concede sound arguments, and proceeded from there with an ad hominem attack when I pressed you for answers. To be honest, I feel the drift of this thread is heading in the same direction. And so I responded aggressively, since I was determined not to again enumerate many sound arguments, only to receive the same kind of response as before.

But to be specific, let me give you an example of the kind of thing that really bothers me. I spent a substantial amount of my reply to Paidon demonstrating that either Luke 16:18 contradicts Jesus’ statement about remarriage in Matthew 5, in which case the Bible contradicts itself, or else the translators failed to render the middle voice to show self-reflexive action, opting instead to render the phrase “is put away”. So either the Bible contradicts itself on this point, or there is here a true use of the middle voice which translators failed to render. And so far neither Paidon nor you have conceded my point, or even conceded there is a dilemma here. BTW this is not an argument peculiar to me. I first learned of the problem of Luke 16:18 from Spiros Zodiates on his radio program years ago.

Anyway, the thing that therefore puzzles me is when you write to ask me if I can give you some reason “why we should listen to you above those for whom New Testament Greek was a life's work…?” But I think to myself, Didn’t I just show you why? Didn’t I just implicitly demonstrate that the entire body of life-long Greek scholars that have rendered Luke 16:18 in a score of translations got it wrong? But to be fair, certainly translators often get it right. But what I try to get people to see is that life-long Greek-language scholars shouldn’t be trusted simply on the basis they are life-long Greek-language scholars. And so my problem with your comment was that, in effect you were asking me for a proof of shoddy, biblical scholasticism, when, in fact, I had already cited an example of it. So, yeah, I’m puzzled and not a little exasperated.

Also, in the way you phrased your question, pitting my credibility against that of life-long Greek scholars, made me wonder if you realized the matter is more complicated than this, since life-long Greek scholars do not always agree among themselves on particular points.

As for John 10:28, I was trying to make the point that we ought to entertain the possibility that the middle should be rendered to indicate self-reflexive action. If I understand your point, you feel that my rendering [“they ought not to destroy themselves”] doesn’t fit the context. I’m not exactly sure why you feel this way, except I suspect you hold to the doctrine of eternal security, which would lead you to suppose that any statement suggesting a Christian could become lost, is absurd. I understand why you would feel this way (if, in fact, you feel this way) since until a few years ago, at age 50, I had myself always embraced the doctrine of eternal security. But in recent years I have come to believe the Bible doesn’t really support this doctrine. And so, from my vantage point now, it seems natural that when Jesus speaks of no man able to snatch his sheep out of his hand, that the only remaining concern, since God is faithful to his promises of keeping the believer, is that the sheep themselves might wander away.

Anyway, I appreciate your attempt to try to clear the air. I have spoken very frankly in the hope this will aid in doing so.

DanielGracely
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: The Rapture

Post by DanielGracely » Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:27 pm

Paidion wrote:
I think what I took away from Conrad's article is that he would disagree with your conclusion.
Which conclusion? Do you mean my statement that in Hellenistic Greek, in some tenses, the passive voice is distinct from the middle voice? That is not a conclusion; that is a grammatical fact.

William D. Mounce, author of Basics of Biblical Greek summarizes the matter in chapter 9, page 156.
William D. Mounce wrote:In the present tense, the middle and the passive are the same form. In the future, the middle is distinct from both the active and the passive
The fact is that in the future tense, the middle voice employs the future active stem, whereas the passive voice employs the aorist passive stem (though the endings are identical).
Unless I'm misunderstanding Conrad's article, I think he would disagree with Mounce's position that "passive" has its own voice. At least, that was my impression.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Rapture

Post by Paidion » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:27 am

Then how would he explain the difference in form betwen the middle future and the passive future? Does he think these are just two different forms of the middle future?

But in that case, why would the voice be called "middle"? This implies that it is between active and passive.

This reminds me of a time I was in a fast food restaurant and ordered a small ice cream dessert. The waitress said, "I'm sorry, Sir. We don't have small. Only medium and large."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

DanielGracely
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: The Rapture

Post by DanielGracely » Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:48 pm

Paidion wrote:Then how would he explain the difference in form betwen the middle future and the passive future? Does he think these are just two different forms of the middle future?

But in that case, why would the voice be called "middle"? This implies that it is between active and passive.

This reminds me of a time I was in a fast food restaurant and ordered a small ice cream dessert. The waitress said, "I'm sorry, Sir. We don't have small. Only medium and large."
It's a good question, Paidon, though I feel unable to answer it. Sometimes I think I have a basic grasp of what he's saying about the passive, but I do find it somewhat confusing when he puts the word passive in quotes sometimes, but not always. However, I've spent some time formatting his article with the HTML tags and will float it in below, in case anyone wants to jump in and have a shot at your question. Also, you might want to look at point 5.4 of this more involved article by Conrad about Voice, at http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... cGrkVc.pdf. At any rate, I don't think any of this affects what I have said about the necessity for the "true middle" in Luke 16:18. Here is the article:

Active, Middle, and Passive: Understanding Ancient Greek Voice
C W. Conrad, Associate Professor Emeritus of Classics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
1. Active Voice:
1.a. Active Voice, Transitive and Intransitive Verbs in English:
The standard form for verbs in English, whether intransitive or transitive, portrays the grammatical subject of the verb as performing the act, as for example:
a. “The boy is at home.”
b. “The boy runs.”
c. “The boy eats meat.”
This standard form is generally called “active” although the categorization as “active” is not really relevant unless the verb is transitive, which is to say, unless that verb takes an object as "The boy eats meat." In this sentence, we call the verb “eats” transitive. In “The boy is at home” and “The boy runs” the verbs “is” and “runs” are intransitive.
(It is true that a transitive verb may be used “intransitively” or “absolutely,” as in “The
boy eats” (but we might say there’s an implicit object of the verb “eats” but we are not
expressing it and we aren’t interested in the boy’s habitual diet. It is also true that an
intransitive verb may occasionally be used transitively, as in “The boy runs a good race.” Here “race” is the direct object of “runs.” Nevertheless, these are exceptions; generally a verb is transitive if it takes a direct object. )
1.b. Active Voice, Transitive and Intransitive Verbs in Ancient Greek:
As in English, so also in Greek the standard form of the verb, whether intransitive or
transitive, portrays the grammatical subject of the verb as performing the act. We can illustrate this with the precise equivalents of the sentences used previously for English:
οἴκοι ἐστὶν ὁ παῖς.
τρέχει ὁ παῖς.
τὸ κρέας ἐσθίει ὁ παῖς.

As in the English sentences above, so here too in Greek the form of these verbs is commonly called “active,” although the categorization as “active” is not relevant unless the verb is transitive. In sentences (a) and (b) above the verbs ἐστὶν and τρέχει are intransitive but employ the standard form for Greek verbs which is called “active.” Of the three sentences, however, only the third has a transitive verb, ἐσθίει. Here the term “active” is more appropriate because the grammatical subject is performing the action and the verb has a direct object, τὸ κρέας.
2. Passive Voice:
2.a. Passive Voice in English:

When a transitive verb has a direct object, as in the sentence “The boy eats meat,” the clause can be converted into a “passive” form wherein the direct object of the original clause becomes the subject of the new clause and the verb of the original clause is reformulated, normally with a form of the auxiliary verb “be” and a past participle of the verb. When thus converted, the sentence “The boy eats meat” becomes “Meat is eaten by the boy.” It isn’t even really necessary that the prepositional phrase expressing the agent (in this instance, “the boy”) is explicit. The sentence “Meat is eaten” or “Meat is being eaten” shifts the focus away from the person performing the act onto the person or thing undergoing the action. That is to say, in a passive-voice clause, the grammatical subject is the recipient or experient of the action or process indicated by the verb.
2.b. Passive Voice in Greek:
In the English sentence, “The boy eats meat,” we have noted that we could convert the
direct object of the verb “eats” into the subject of a new sentence with a passive form of the verb and also, if we wish, indicate the one performing the action with an agent phrase; we can do the same in Greek: in this instance τὸ κρέας ἐσθίει ὁ παῖς becomes τὸ κρέας ἐσθίεται (ὑπὸ τοῦ παιδός) . In this instance the verb-form employed has a distinct “morphoparadigm” (i.e. a pattern of verb conjugation involving stems and endings) that indicates the “passive” meaning. This morphoparadigm is traditionally termed “middle-passive” for reasons that will be explained later.
3. Expressions neither active nor passive:
3.a. English expressions neither active nor passive:

English grammar doesn’t have any other categories of grammatical voice than these two, “active” and “passive.” Nevertheless English does have ways of expressing other relationships between the grammatical subject and the action or state/condition indicated by the verb. Such expressions may use an auxiliary verb such as “have” or “get” as in:

a. “The boy is having his hair cut” or “The boy has his hair cut”
b. “The boy gets up every morning at 7 a.m.”
c. “The boy will undergo baptism tomorrow.”

How should these sentences be analyzed in terms of the voices of English grammar? The predicate in sentence (a) above may be understood such that “his hair” is the direct object of “is having … cut” or “has … cut.” That is to say, the verb “have” is transitive and active, and “cut” is a participial predicate adjective construed with the direct object, “his hair.” The predicate in sentence (b) is “gets up” (for surely “up” is an essential part of the verb in this instance in the sense of “awaken and/or arise”); in this instance we should probably call “gets up” an intransitive verb. The predicate of sentence (c) above, “will undergo baptism” is intelligible but requires a more careful analysis: we may say that “will undergo” is here a transitive verb and “baptism” is its direct object, but upon reflection we can see that what is meant is that the boy is going to be baptized by some person credentialed to perform the ritual; that is to say, the expression seems implicitly to be passive, although it is formulated in such a way as to indicate the boy’s willing participation in the upcoming baptism.
3.b. Greek expressions neither active nor altogether passive:
Each of the three sentences set forth as examples in §3.a. above can be formulated in Greek
as follows:
a. κείρεται ὁ παῖς.
b. ἐγείρεται ὁ παῖς καθ᾿ ἡμέραν πρωὶ τῇ ὥρᾳ τῇ πρώτῃ
c. βαπτισθήσεται αὔριον ὁ παῖς.
In each of these three sentences the Greek verb is formulated in a voice-form that is neither distinctly active nor distinctly passive. The verbs in sentence a. (κείρεται) and in sentence b.( ἐγείρεται) are traditionally said to be in the “middle-passive” voice, while the verb in sentence c. (βαπτισθήσεται) is traditionally said to be in the “passive” voice. In fact, however, each of these verbs belongs to a morphoparadigm—a conjugated verb pattern—that has flexibility of verbal meaning and can fluctuate between intransitive notions of entering into a state or condition or activity and transitive notions indicative of actions being performed upon the grammatical subject. That is to say: verbs in sentences such as c. above may be understood as passive and may be translated as passive in English: “The boy will be baptized tomorrow.” But such verbs may just as well indicate that the boy will with clear and resolute intention submit himself to baptism, in which case we might translate the verb βαπτισθήσεται as “The boy will have himself baptized tomorrow.” But this means that the verb, although we might want to call it transitive, is not really passive any more than it is active. It is what Greek traditionally calls “middle voice”—a grammatical category that often seems difficult for English speakers to understand rightly.
The verb in sentence b. above (ἐγείρεται) is also in the Greek “middle” voice. This verb form in this instance could be understood as transitive and passive in meaning if the context should indicate that it means “The boy is awakened (e.g. by noises outside his bedroom or by rays of sunlight streaming through his window), but it may just as well be intransitive and indicate the natural process of awakening at the impulse of a boy’s internal alarm clock: “The boy wakes up.” How can we tell whether the verb-form in question should be understood as “middle” or “passive”? Only the context can provide us with clues; the important thing for one learning Greek here is that the morphoparadigms itself is flexible—not either “passive” or “middle” but “middle-passive” and indicative of the fact that the grammatical subject is entering into a state or condition or action either on his own initiative or in response to some external stimulus or cause or even spontaneously. In the case of this particular verb it is perhaps worth noting that New Testament texts describing the resurrection of Jesus often use this verb in the aorist form ἠγέρθη which may be understood to mean either “he arose” or “he was raised.” Whether or not the verb should be understood as intransitive (“he arose”) or as passive (“he was raised”) depends wholly upon contextual factors and in some instances may be impossible to determine with any certainty.
The same flexibility is in evidence in sentence a. above. The verb may mean, “cuts his own hair” or “has he hair cut (by a barber or by a friend)” or “is shorn of his hair,” this last alternative chosen if one understands the verb in its context as passive in meaning.
The principle to be understood here is that middle-passive morphoparadigms do not, in and of themselves, indicate necessarily either a transitive or intransitive nor middle nor passive meaning. They are ambivalent and flexible and must be interpreted each in accordance with the character of the verb in question and the contextual indicators of the instance under examination. The usage of the middle-passive morphoparadigms is unquestionably one of the most difficult features of ancient Greek for a learner to appreciate; while one may develop some facility with reading Greek middle-passive forms and understanding their meaning, it will be much more difficult to formulate the proper Greek verb-forms corresponding to one’s native English verbs. If ever there was a feature of ancient Greek hindering word-to-word equivalent expressions, this is certainly one such feature.
4. The Morphoparadigms for Voice in Ancient Greek
I use the word morphoparadigms (so far as I know, this is my own coinage) to refer to a conjugational paradigm of a verbal system consistently used to convey a distinct category or combination of categories of verbal information. With respect to Voice in ancient Greek it is customary to speak of three voices: Active, Middle, and Passive but to speak of three morphoparadigms of voice: “active,” “middle-passive” and “passive.” Traditional grammars of ancient Greek have also described a category of conjugation called “deponent,” but there is really no need for such a category of conjugation and the conception of “deponency” must be seen as a deterrent to understanding the authentic nature of “middle-passive” verbs.
4.1. Only Two Original “Voices”: Active and Middle-Passive
Linguists refer to the parent language from which Greek derives as “Proto-Indo-European.” They tell us that Proto-Indo-European had only two morphoparadigms for voice, those conjugational patterns that in Greek have traditionally been called “Active” and “Middle-Passive.” There was no distinct morphological indication in verbs that expressed the notion of the “passive” only; rather, the “Middle-Passive” sufficed to convey both intransitive notions of entering into a state or condition or activity and transitive notions indicative of actions being performed upon the grammatical subject. To be more precise, the Proto-Indo-European and the Greek language in its earliest form had no distinct morphoparadigms to express the concept of the Passive voice. I would contend that, contrary to what traditional grammarians have taught, ancient Greek never did have a morphoparadigms that expressed exclusively the concept of the
Passive Voice.
4.2. “Active” Voice: a “standard” form, usually conveying an active but often an
intransitive, occasionally a passive meaning

As noted above in §§1.a and 1.b, the standard morphoparadigms in Greek as well as in English is conventionally called “active.” Greek verb-forms are more likely to display the “active” morphoparadigm than any other; in fact of the 28,133 verb-forms in the Greek New Testament 20,696 (73.5%) are “active.” In tables of ancient Greek verb paradigms, the “active” morphoparadigms display:
“Primary” endings (used in the present and future indicative and in all subjunctives) -
ω, -εις, -ει, -ομεν, -ετε, -ουσι(ν) in the so-called “Thematic” or “Omega” verbs or -μι, -σι, -τι, -μεν, -τε, -ντ (or their historical derivative forms) in the so-called “Athematic” or “Mi” verbs; “Secondary” endings (used in the imperfect and aorist indicative and in all optatives) -ον, -ες, -ε(ν), -ομεν, -ετε, -ον in the so-called “Thematic” or “Omega” verbs or -ν, -ς, -τ, -μεν, -τε, -ντ (or their historical derivative forms) in the so-called “Athematic” or “Mi” verbs, including the so-called “Athematic” aorists in -ων and -ην); Alpha active endings (used in the Sigmatic or Alpha aorist and in the Perfect active indicative) -α, -ας, -ε(ν), -αμεν, -ατε, -αν ( -ᾶσι(ν) in the perfect tense). One should also include the infinitive endings: -ειν, -ναι, -αι, -εναι, the participial Markers -ντ- (present) and -(κ)ως (perfect) and the imperative endings: -ε//-ς, -έτω, -ετε// τε, -οντων//ντων (Hellenistic -τωσαν). It needs to be understood that the designation of these verb forms as “active” is descriptive in a meaningful sense only when a verb is transitive and takes an object. Perhaps we could say that these verbs are all “active” in the sense that the grammatical subject is a “participant” in the verbal action, but that is too vague and it also opens the door to the misleading conception of “deponency” since in reality it is just as true that the grammatical subject of “middle-passive” verbs is a “participant” in the verbal action. Therefore, although we call this verb-form “active” in accordance with traditional terminology, we should view it as the “default” form of conjugation for a Greek verb. The “active” voice-forms quite commonly are used to indicate transitivity and in that case do take an object, explicitly or implicitly. But it is also true that quite a few verbs in this “active” verb-form are intransitive—verbs such as εἰμί (“I am”) and τρέχω (“I run”), and there are a few verbs that are commonly used in Greek with meanings that might normally be considered “passive.”
4.3 “Middle-Passive” Voice: ambivalent and flexible, conveying sense ranging from
involuntary to intentional entering into a state or condition or action by the grammatical subject to undergoing of action initiated externally

As noted above in §3.b, verbs in these morphoparadigms are ambivalent and flexible; while they are much less frequent in ancient Greek than “active” forms, they are nevertheless the only forms in which some of the most important verbs in the language appear. When many of the verbs in these morphoparadigms are converted into English, the English equivalents may have “active” forms, and for that reason the term “deponent” has been used to categorize such verbs (see §5 below); it would be preferable to learn these verbs simply as “middle-passive.” While traditional grammarians have referred to the voice-forms of the “middle-passive” in the present, imperfect, future, perfect, and pluperfect tenses as ambivalent and flexible, open to bearing distinct “middle” or “passive” or intransitive meaning, they have almost universally designated the -θη- forms of the aorist and future tenses as distinctly “passive.” In fact, however, although many and perhaps even most of the -θη- forms may in their context bear a “passive” sense, yet many others are intransitive or “middle” in meaning. For this reason, I believe that we should designate both these morphoparadigms as “middle-passive.” My own preference would be to refer the more common morphoparadigms of the present, imperfect, future, perfect, and pluperfect tenses as “MP1” forms and of the -θη- forms of the aorist and future tenses as “MP2” forms. I believe that adoption of these designations in textbooks and reference works of ancient Greek hereafter would obviate much of the confusion and misunderstanding associated with identification and description of these verb-forms as “middle deponents” or “passive deponents” or “passives with intransitive meaning.”
4.3.a. μαι//σαι//ται-μην//σο//το (traditionally termed “middle-passive”) endings (“MP1”
morphoparadigms)

“Primary” endings (used in the present, future, and perfect indicative and in all subjunctives) -μαι, -σαι (or ῃ), -ται, -μεθα, -σθε, -νται with the characteristic ο//ε linking or “thematic” vowel in the so-called “Thematic” or “Omega” verbs; “Secondary” endings (used in the imperfect, aorist, and pluperfect indicative (when the pluperfect is not periphrastic, at least) and in all optatives) -μην, -σο (or ου//ω), -το, - μεθα, -σθε, -ντο with the characteristic ο//ε linking or “thematic” vowel in the so-called “Thematic” or “Omega” verbs and with the appropriate Alpha linking vowel in the Sigmatic aorist;
One should also include the infinitive ending: -σθαι, the participial marker -μεν- and the imperative endings: -ου//-σο, -σθω, -σθε, -σθων (Hellenistic -σθωσαν).
4.3.b. The -θη- (traditionally termed “passive”) endings (“MP2” morphoparadigms)
While the or -ν, -ς, -τ, -μεν, -τε, -ντ of the aorist and future tenses are traditionally
understood as bearing fundamentally passive meaning, they appear to have originated as alternative forms of an non-thematic form of the “standard” aorist “active” in -ην//ης//η// ημεν//τηε//ησαν. In fact one can discern this in the so-called “second passive” of the verb φαίνομαι. Although the standard aorist “passive” form of this verb is ἐφάνθην, the older common form is ἐφάνην. This is actually intransitive and ἐφάνη may mean either “it became manifest” or “it was made manifest.” That is to say, the verb-form can bear either an intransitive middle sense or a transitive active sense, depending on the context. The aorist forms of the -θη- morphoparadigm, it should be noted, are conjugated with “active” endings (-ν, -ς, -τ, -μεν, -τε, -σαν). The truth is that these verb-forms from their very inception in the Greek language were bearers of the same kinds of meaning as those morphoparadigms described above in §4.3.a. On the basis of analogy with the vowel-stem future middles a the -θη- future tense was constructed with the forms -θήσομαι, -θήσῃ, -θήσεται, -θησόμεθα, -θήσεσθε, -θήσονται. Like the aorists these futures are also bearers of the same kinds of meaning as futures of the sort described in §4.3.a. above.
5. So-called “Deponent” verbs
Traditional grammarians have referred to verbs that have no “active” voice-forms but
regularly have present-tense forms in -μαι as “deponent” verbs. The term “deponent” has been variously explained, most commonly with an implication that they are somehow defective, perhaps that they once had an “active” morphoparadigm but lack one in the historical period of the language. Also some verbs that have active forms in the present tense but whose future is middle (e.g. βαίνω//βήσομαι, μανθάνω//μαθήσομαι) are by the same reasoning termed “future deponents.” And again, a distinction is drawn between “middle deponents” (verbs that have a present-tense form in -μαι and future in -σομαι) and “passive deponents” (verbs that have a present-tense form in –-μαι and future in -θήσομαι). In fact, however, the term and concept of “deponency” is confusing and misleading. Verbs such as ἔρχομαι and ἀποκρίνομαι and δύναμαι ought not to be considered in any way irregular or wanting because they have no “active-voice” forms. The Greek-speaker understands these verbs as involved in a kind of relationship to the grammatical subject that properly finds expression in the “middle-passive” morphoparadigm. It may be difficult for non-Greek-speakers to grasp the distinctive notion implicit in these “middle-passive” forms, but one should make the effort to discern their flexibility for expression of notions of entering into a state or condition or action, whether involuntarily or voluntarily, and for notions of undergoing a process or action or being subjected to an action. One ought not to suppose that these verbs, because they may be translated into English by “active-voice” verb-forms, are in any way
irregular or accidentally given forms that are not appropriate to them.
6. Learning the Greek verbs
Know the verb, not just the morphology:
Whether your focus is classical Attic, Homeric, or Koine (especially Biblical) Greek, you must learn the principal parts of the 50+ irregular verbs, i.e. of verbs whose tense-stems are not predictable from the present first person singular form (lexical form or lemma). In traditional terms these are (1) Present indicative first singular, (2) Future indicative first singular, (3) Aorist indicative first singular, (4) Perfect active first singular, (5) Perfect MP first singular, (6) Aorist -θη- first singular. If a student is ever to learn to read Greek with any fluency, he or she must gain the ability to recognize at sight any form of a verb confronted in the text. In addition to the principal parts one needs to learn the idiosyncrasies of the important verbs—and you can be sure that the irregular verbs are particularly important: the reason that they have retained their idiosyncratic forms is precisely that they continued to be used repeatedly in everyday speech and writing and therefore their forms were not subject to the leveling and standardization of less-frequently used verbs. When you learn a verb like ἁλίσκομαι, ἁλώσομαι, ἑάλων, ἑάλωκα, you need to learn that all the morphoparadigms of this verb, regardless whether “standard” (or “active”) as are ἑάλων, and ἑάλωκα or “middle-passive” as are ἁλίσκομαι and ἁλώσομαι, bear a passive semantic value, i.e. they mean “be caught/convicted.” When you learn a verb like ἀποκρίνομαι, ἀποκριθήσομαι, ἀπεκρίθην (which has only these three principal parts), you must grasp that this verb bears a “middle” semantic value and that the -θη- forms of its aorist and future tense regularly bear the “middle” sense proper to this verb; there is nothing irregular about the voice morphoparadigms of this verb. When you learn the verb γίνομαι, γενήσομαι, ἐγενόμην//ἐγενήθην, γέγονα//γεγένημαι, you must grasp that this verb too is essentially “middle” in sense although in some contexts it may bear a passive sense, and you must realize that the two aorist forms ἐγενόμην and ἐγενήθην bear the same sense and that, like sigmatic (ἔλυσα) and thematic (ἔλαβον) types of aorist, they are not different in meaning just because the morphoparadigm differs; you must grasp too that the perfect forms γέγονα (“basic” or “active” morphoparadigm) and γεγένημαι (MP morphoparadigm) both bear the same “middle” sense. I would recommend further that, when the student learns these principal parts of the irregular verbs, he or she should spend some time and effort in careful study of the lexical entries in Liddell & Scott or in BDAG for each of them, noting carefully the idiosyncrasies of form and usage of each verb. Ultimately one must know the idiosyncrasies of these verbs as one comes to know the psyche of temperamental or “difficult” persons with whom one has frequent dealings and whom one must understand well.
7. Evidence underlying the principles here expounded
A fuller exposition of the principles underlying the introduction to ancient Greek voice set forth above may be found in a longer PDF document by the author entitled, “New
Observations on Ancient Greek Voice” accessible at http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf
or at
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... cGrkVc.pdf
Extracts from historical linguists Pierre Chantraine and Andrew Sihler demonstrating what has been argued in this paper and in that referred to above regarding the -θη- verb-forms may be found in a PDF document entitled “Aorist Passive in –H-, -QH- at
http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/AorPass-H-QH..pdf
or at
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... s-H-QH.pdf
The most recent version of this document may be accessed at:
http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/UndAncGrkVc.pdf
or at
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... cGrkVc.pdf
December 16, 2003
Carl W. Conrad,
Associate Professor Emeritus of Classics
Washington University, St. Louis, MO

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: The Rapture

Post by backwoodsman » Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:59 am

DanielGracely wrote:Based on our last exchange about the Trinity, I felt you were unwilling to concede sound arguments
But that's just the thing -- some of your arguments aren't nearly as sound as you think they are. In fact, some of them have some pretty big holes in them. I went back to find the point in that thread at which you first became hostile toward me, and it was when I pointed out a couple of those holes. Needless to say, that is not a wise or humble response, nor does it benefit anyone. One of the biggest advantages of a forum like this is that one can put ideas out there for others' consideration, then deal with questions and disagreements in a way that honors God and is profitable for everyone. But someone who is convinced he's the only person on the planet who already knows everything and has no blind spots isn't going to benefit much from being here, nor is he going to add much of any value to others. (1 Cor. 13 comes to mind, particularly v1.)
proceeded from there with an ad hominem attack
Please point out where I did that, and explain why you think it's an ad hominem attack. If you can't support this false accusation, then I think you should stop making it, wouldn't you agree? The record is there for you or anyone else to peruse at your/their leisure, and shows quite clearly which of us favors the ad hominem attack.
Anyway, the thing that therefore puzzles me is when you write to ask me if I can give you some reason “why we should listen to you above those for whom New Testament Greek was a life's work…?” But I think to myself, Didn’t I just show you why?
Well, no, you didn't. Once again, your position contains at least one logical error that completely decimates your argument; hence my question. Established authorities aren't always right, but the standard for proving them wrong needs to be held pretty high. So far, you're not even in the ballpark. Errors in logic or fact are a non-starter; and even without those, the character one demonstrates can go a long way in making or breaking one's point.

DanielGracely
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: The Rapture

Post by DanielGracely » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:14 pm

backwoodsman wrote:
DanielGracely wrote:Based on our last exchange about the Trinity, I felt you were unwilling to concede sound arguments
But that's just the thing -- some of your arguments aren't nearly as sound as you think they are. In fact, some of them have some pretty big holes in them. I went back to find the point in that thread at which you first became hostile toward me, and it was when I pointed out a couple of those holes. Needless to say, that is not a wise or humble response, nor does it benefit anyone. One of the biggest advantages of a forum like this is that one can put ideas out there for others' consideration, then deal with questions and disagreements in a way that honors God and is profitable for everyone. But someone who is convinced he's the only person on the planet who already knows everything and has no blind spots isn't going to benefit much from being here, nor is he going to add much of any value to others. (1 Cor. 13 comes to mind, particularly v1.)
proceeded from there with an ad hominem attack
Please point out where I did that, and explain why you think it's an ad hominem attack. If you can't support this false accusation, then I think you should stop making it, wouldn't you agree? The record is there for you or anyone else to peruse at your/their leisure, and shows quite clearly which of us favors the ad hominem attack.
Anyway, the thing that therefore puzzles me is when you write to ask me if I can give you some reason “why we should listen to you above those for whom New Testament Greek was a life's work…?” But I think to myself, Didn’t I just show you why?
Well, no, you didn't. Once again, your position contains at least one logical error that completely decimates your argument; hence my question. Established authorities aren't always right, but the standard for proving them wrong needs to be held pretty high. So far, you're not even in the ballpark. Errors in logic or fact are a non-starter; and even without those, the character one demonstrates can go a long way in making or breaking one's point.
Greetings backwoodsman,

The following statement by you is the kind of out-of-bounds rhetoric I can't ever remember using against you:
But someone who is convinced he's the only person on the planet who already knows everything and has no blind spots...
That's so inflammatory I hardly know where to begin. Your comment about my being "not even in the ballpark" isn't much better. I find this odd since you clamored so much in the past about what you perceived was my lack of character. Where is your grace, brother? And incidentally, I have never claimed to know everything, and I believe I even said as much in the Trinity discussion, i.e., that though I believed I had the gift of knowledge, this did not mean knowledge about everything. I'll go back and pull that out if you want me to, since I'm pretty sure it's there.

Anyway, I already stated at the end of the Trinity thread that I did not wish to pursue our disagreement. If you notice, I gave you the last word on that thread, so I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about what arguments are sound in regard to the Trinity. And as you say, the record is there if anyone cares to review it for themselves.

Leaving that personal history behind us as well as we can, I want to focus on your claim regarding this thread. Your quote of me was as follows:
Anyway, the thing that therefore puzzles me is when you write to ask me if I can give you some reason “why we should listen to you above those for whom New Testament Greek was a life's work…?” But I think to myself, Didn’t I just show you why?
I wish you had quoted the next sentence of mine to show what it was I was talking about. My next sentence read:
Didn’t I just implicitly demonstrate that the entire body of life-long Greek scholars that have rendered Luke 16:18 in a score of translations got it wrong?
That is the context which explains my rhetorical question to you, when I asked, Didn’t I just show you why? To this you make quite a few charges against me, yet detail nothing whatsoever to support your claim that my position “contained at least one logical error which completely decimates your argument.” That’s a fantastic and bold claim. Yet you fail to mention what the supposed logical error is! You further claim that if the “established authorities” are going to be overwritten, the standard must be “pretty high”. But what is higher than my point that if the phrase, “is put away” remains the translation instead of being rendered in the middle (self-reflexive), then it contradicts Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 about remarriage? Finally, you end your comment by further claiming:
the character one demonstrates can go a long way in making or breaking one's point.
So we’re back to you judging someone’s spirituality to decide whether or not you’ll consider his arguments?

Here’s some advice you may not want. Stick to the argument. Detail what ‘logical error’ you believe I made that allegedly “decimates” my position about Luke 16:18. You talked about productive discussion. What is your idea of that? Telling me I'm convinced I know everything? That’s a lie. You did not even read my comment to Paidon which preceded your comment to me, when I stated flatly: “It's a good question, Paidon, though I feel unable to answer it.” This proves you mischaracterize and engage in ad hominem attack. If this continues another time, I will likely appeal to the moderator.

In the meantime, I hope if/when you reply, you will be specific about your criticism of my view of Luke 16:18, and state the nature of the ‘logical error’ you believe I made. With that the discussion can move forward.
Last edited by DanielGracely on Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:43 am, edited 4 times in total.

DanielGracely
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: The Rapture

Post by DanielGracely » Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:09 pm

For the record…

Here are all 17 the English translations of Luke 16:18 I could put my hands on tonight. Note that not one of them supports Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5 that the innocent party can remarry, based on the exception clause. How many ‘life-long Greek scholars’ are represented in these translations?

KJV Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

NKJV "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from [her] husband commits adultery.

New Living Translation "For example, a man who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery. And anyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

NIV "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

English Standard Version "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

NASB "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Revised Standard Version "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

American Standard Version Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery.

Young’s Literal Translation `Every one who is sending away his wife, and marrying another, doth commit adultery; and every one who is marrying her sent away from a husband doth commit adultery.

Darby Translation Every one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery; and every one that marries one put away from a husband commits adultery.

Webster’s Bible Whoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband, committeth adultery.

Hebrew Names Version Everyone who divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery. He who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Douay Version Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery.

J.B. Phillips Translation "Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery. And so does any man who marries the woman who was divorced from her husband."

Orthodox Jewish Bible Anyone giving the get to his isha and taking another wife commits ni’uf (adultery), and the one marrying a gerusha (divorcee) commits ni’uf (adultery).

Worldwide English (New Testament) `If a man sends away his wife and marries another woman, he commits adultery. And if the man marries a woman who has been sent away by her husband, he commits adultery.'

Wycliffe Bible Every man that forsaketh his wife, and weddeth another, doeth lechery [doeth adultery]; and he that weddeth the wife forsaken of the husband, doeth adultery.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: The Rapture

Post by backwoodsman » Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:14 pm

DanielGracely wrote:
But someone who is convinced he's the only person on the planet who already knows everything and has no blind spots...
That's so inflammatory I hardly know where to begin.
Sorry -- I thought you'd recognize hyperbole, and recognize that it wasn't aimed directly at you while still seeing enough of yourself in it to get the point. So much for tact. And, I was hoping for more than just the one civil response from you (but thank you for that one, at least).

But is that really the only thing in that paragraph that you found notable? I'm disappointed, but not surprised -- I've noticed that those who are determined to take offense will always find a way to do it, no matter what one does or doesn't say. But I wanted to give it one more shot anyway.

As for pointing out your error(s), in the past all that's got me is hostility, false accusations that remain unsubstantiated, claims that you know better than I do what I believe, and apparent attempts to goad me into a fight. Maybe you'd be more open if it came from someone else.

DanielGracely
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: The Rapture

Post by DanielGracely » Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:22 pm

Backwoodsman writes:
But is that really the only thing in that paragraph that you found notable?
Notable? Again, because your criticism was undetailed assertion, there was nothing to which I could respond pertaining to the Luke 16:18 "middle voice" discussion.

As for your hyperbole, when you marry, I think you'll find that neither you nor your wife will much appreciate the "You always..." or "You never..." kind of approach, which at heart is the kind of hyperbole you used. I'm baffled why you think I would find that tactful. If you are married and you and your wife enjoy the always/never approach, you're surely the first.

Post Reply

Return to “Eschatology”