I know you're replying to numerous persons at once, Karl, so please bear with me as I continue to do so myself
kwrandolph wrote:Seriously, I’ve become a lot more sensitive to spellings and the meanings that they imply over the last few years. It’s given me more respect for the consonantal text and a recognition that it’s pretty accurate. But when the text gets pretty hairy, I’m not above checking the DSS and other sources for alternate readings. I’m very wary of any “corrections” where there’s no attestation to back them up.
Agreed. You know that I also don't care for the Masoretic points, and will happily look for another explanation if I don't think they've got it right.
You'll also know that I consult the DSS and LXX often, and have no trouble pointing to them as having the correct text for us to go off.
We can make a S-O-V word order in Greek without changing the meaning, we can do that in Hebrew without changing the meaning, but we can’t do that in English, because changing the word order changes the meaning.
Ah, this is my fault for not explaining what I was actually doing in the word order change: my main point was to show that
had ... committed was the translation of the same verb in English; just that in the case of 'having' or 'causing someone/thing to do something', English can't, unlike other languages, have the direct/accusative object in the final place in the sentence. 'had ... committed' therefore is active voice, past tense in English - it isn't both active and passive, as it has a direct object that is neither part of, nor owned, by the subject. This can only really be active - it wouldn't, as far as I can see, come under the definition of 'middle'
Isn’t what you call “middle” really reflexive, which in Hebrew would take the Hitpael?
My understanding of reflexive is neither passive nor middle, rather active, with the subject being both the initiator and beneficiary of the action.
A reflexive understanding is one of the many functions of the Greek middle. Though in the case of a truly reflexive action, Greek would actually employ an active verb with a reflexive pronoun - the middle wouldn't necessarily be used, but it could be.
What I understand as “middle” is something different from reflexive and has a definite passive aspect to its action.
Smyth's breakdown of the Greek Middle will probably explain it better than I'm doing -
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D104
Though, see next comment before perusing the page above. It highlighted something I've missed
Herod caused John the Baptist to be beheaded. “to be beheaded” is passive. “Caused” is active. Hence the middle because it has both active and passive in the same verbal construct. In English we have the active and passive separated out through the use of helper verbs. Hebrew doesn’t have helper verbs, so indicates the middle through subject—passive verb—object. That’s how I understand this construct.
As for Hiphil, it doesn’t have the passive—I don’t see how it would work.
......
I call it “middle passive” not knowing what else to call it, because it’s using a passive verb, with an active element in the action.
What is pertinent, is from Smyth #1725:
1725. The Causative Middle denotes that the subject has something done by another for himself
Herein lies our answer: One could argue that the hophal denotes the causative middle, even though it isn't 'passive', as in, the action of the verb isn't performed
on the subject, but
for the subject.
This however would also be applied to the active voice, as Smyth has in 1711:
1711. Causative Active.—The active may be used of an action performed at the bidding of the subject: Κῦρος τὰ βασίλεια κατέκαυσεν Cyrus burnt down the palace (i.e. had it burnt down) X. A. 1.4.10. So with ἀποκτείνειν put to death, θάπτειν bury, οἰκοδομεῖν build, παιδεύειν instruct, ἀνακηρΰττειν publicly proclaim.
So in essence, this could apply to both qal and hiphil, and niphal and hophal.
In the sentence
Herod caused John the Baptist to be beheaded, both 'caused' and 'to be beheaded' are active, in that they have an object in which the verb is being performed on (John the Baptist) - if 'to be beheaded' were passive, then this would mean that it was Herod that was being beheaded, and not John the Baptist (passive voice has to only affect the subject - it can't be a passive affecting the object).
In Matt 14, we would have an example of what Smyth denotes in 1711 - a causative active.
We do have the middle passive though (see Smyth 1733), but again, this affects the subject only, and not an object, and is intransitive rather than transitive, which would be required in Lev 9:17 methinks