matt 11:12

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Post Reply
joseph47parker
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:47 am

matt 11:12

Post by joseph47parker »

I'm not sure if this verse has been discussed here before, but I couldn't find anything when I searched for it. I'm wanting to get some various view points on this verse. The text in Greek leaves one perplexed, should βιαζεται and βιασται it be seen the passive or middle? Should they both be translated in the same voice? Is there a tie in to Micah 2:12-13? Then what is the significance of this verse in context and is there any connection that one should tie into Luke 16:16. There are several ways one could translate this verse. Please let me know the translation you like and why and what the implications for that translation would be. Thanks.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: matt 11:12

Post by Bert »

joseph47parker wrote:.... The text in Greek leaves one perplexed, should βιαζεται and βιασται it be seen the passive or middle? ....
The first word is a verb and in this verse pretty well has to be passive. The second is a noun so passive or middle is not an issue.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: matt 11:12

Post by Bert »

Bert wrote:
joseph47parker wrote:.... The text in Greek leaves one perplexed, should βιαζεται and βιασται it be seen the passive or middle? ....
The first word is a verb and in this verse pretty well has to be passive. The second is a noun so passive or middle is not applicable.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Come on Bert, quoting yourself doesn't add weight to your argument.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly »

Kasper wrote:Come on Bert, quoting yourself doesn't add weight to your argument.
Maybe he just couldn't wait to get to the 1600 posts mark. Wow.
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

joseph47parker
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:47 am

Post by joseph47parker »

Thanks to you guys that have responded thus far. So here is the situation as I understand it. The two phrases here that can be translated in two different ways:

the first phrase “η βασιλεια των ου?ανων βιαζεται? can be translated
in the middle voice as “the kingdom of heaven comes forcefully? (+)
or in the passive which would translate something like “suffers violence?. (-)


The second phrase “και βιασαι α?παζουσιν αυτην? can be translated
as “forceful people try to seize it? (+)
or as “violent persons plunder it?. (-)


You can see these ideas carried out in the various translations.

The +/+ here in the NIV

…the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.

The -/- in the Complete Jewish Bible
…the Kingdom of Heaven has been suffering violence; yes, violent ones are trying to snatch it away.

The +/- in the New Contemporary Version
…the Kingdom of Heaven has been suffering violence; yes, violent ones are trying to snatch it away.

And the -/+ in the majority of the translations

…the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
KJV

…the Kingdom of heaven has suffered violent attacks, and violent men try to seize it.
TEV



The first phrase if taken in the (+) can mean that the kingdom of God is making big strides forward, if in the (-) then it can mean that the Kingdom is under attack, like from the Pharisees and such. The second part if taken (+) usually takes the view of vigorous discipleship. If taken in the (+) some nonbelievers will use this to say that Christianity and Islam are both “religions? of violence. If taken (-) then it can mean that the Pharisees and others are trying to get squash it. There is even some thought that if you translated this into the Hebrew that you will see that it was a metaphor of sheep forcing their way out of a pen of sorts “into? the kingdom of God. That is the relevance to Micah.

When I read this I tend to think that the first part of v 12 in reference to John the Baptist (JB) puts a “timeline? on the next statement and so I would think in light of JB and Jesus that the kingdom is coming forcefully. The next part, as I understand it, seems to make more sense if we consider that the words for violence are almost always used in a bad sense. So I would translate it as “violent people plunder it? as a reference to JB being put in prison and Jesus coming to be crucified. This puts me in the minority apparently on how this is translated, which is why I would like to get some of you great Greek/theologian types to tell me how you understand it and why.

Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by Kopio »



Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

Kasper wrote:Come on Bert, quoting yourself doesn't add weight to your argument.
Well, I thought it looked good that somebody agreed with me. Even used my words to prove his point.
Actually, I don't know what happened. (The 1600th post is just a bonus :))

Post Reply