Textkit Logo

matt 11:12

Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

matt 11:12

Postby joseph47parker » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:05 pm

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

Re: matt 11:12

Postby Bert » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:23 am

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: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: matt 11:12

Postby Bert » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:24 am

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.
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Postby Kasper » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:35 am

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

Postby edonnelly » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:08 am

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
User avatar
edonnelly
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA

Postby joseph47parker » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:53 pm

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 ουÏ￾ανων βιαζεταιâ€￾ can be translated
in the middle voice as “the kingdom of heaven comes forcefullyâ€￾ (+)
or in the passive which would translate something like “suffers violenceâ€￾. (-)


The second phrase “και βιασαι αÏ￾παζουσιν αυτηνâ€￾ can be translated
as “forceful people try to seize itâ€￾ (+)
or as “violent persons plunder itâ€￾. (-)


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 “religionsâ€￾ 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 “intoâ€￾ 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 “timelineâ€￾ 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 itâ€￾ 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.
joseph47parker
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:47 am

Postby Kopio » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:52 am

joseph47parker wrote: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 “religionsâ€￾ 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 “intoâ€￾ 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 “timelineâ€￾ 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 itâ€￾ 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.


I don't know about great Greek/theologian types and all...but I can perhaps shed a little light (or perhaps not). The problem with this verse is that in a lot of ways it is ambiguous. Is βιαζεται to be take as active or passive? How should we best translate αÏ￾παζουσιν? The problem is, as is reflected by the translations you mentioned, no one can really come to a consensus conclusion. A really good resource for online viewing is the NET Bible. There are often valuable notes concerning translational issues within the text. I do have a couple of electronic commentaries that might help. Here is what they say concerning this verse:
NIGTC wrote:11:12. Matthew is, however, not entirely comfortable with what could easily be taken as exalting the significance of the kingdom of God at the expense of John the Baptist. For Matthew, John is a transitional figure who in important ways stands shoulder to shoulder with Jesus in working for God in bringing in the coming of the kingdom: both John and Jesus are preachers of the kingdom, and a brutal fate awaits both at the hands of the governing authorities. Seen together John and Jesus represent the ‘advance forces’ of the kingdom.
Though ‘from’ can either include or exclude ‘the days of John the Baptist’, the syntax is overweighted if ‘from the days’ and ‘until now’ are not designed to draw together the ministries of John and Jesus.28 βιαζεται could be either middle or passive. The former renders the kingdom powerfully making an impact, while the latter has the kingdom suffering violence. The cognate βιασται occurs in the next clause and means ‘violent (or impetuous) persons’.29 Occasional attempts are made to apply βιασται to those who eagerly come to Jesus, but this requires a reading that is too cryptically parabolic to be plausible.30 Scholars sometimes feel obliged to take the verb and the cognate noun as expressing synonymous sentiments, but this makes the second statement somewhat redundant and therefore anticlimactic.31 The balance and poetry of the statement emerge if we take it as a statement about how one kind of forceful activity is met by another, opposed kind of forceful activity. If we take βιαζεται as middle, the first clause speaks of the power and authority of the preaching of the kingdom of God (by John and Jesus) and of Jesus’ assault on illness, disability, and even death itself.32 The second clause underlines the imprisonment of John in the immediate context and picks up on the various threads which have indicated the scale of opposition which what Jesus stands for will provoke.33
It is not easy to give a precise sense to αÏ￾παζουσιν. This is yet another word connoting violence, this time ‘seizing’, ‘grabbing at’, ‘snatching up’, ‘plundering’, and the like. The proper force to be given depends a great deal on the way βιαζεται and βιασται are to be understood. But given the above decisions, the word will express a hostile reaction of some kind. Trying to get into the kingdom on false terms is a possibility, with 3:7–9 in mind. Trying to control access to (the benefits of) the kingdom might suggest itself with reference to 9:3, 34 and especially 23:13 to come. Plundering as an image of carrying off the resources of the kingdom might be applied to the imprisonment of John and its counterpart in the growing hostility to Jesus. The imagery could even be of the attempt to snatch back those who have been forcefully impacted by the kingdom of God. No definite choice is possible, but the penultimate choice produces the best cohesion with the immediate context.


So...in other words....they don't really know. Don't you love it when commentaries duck the really tough stuff? They did at least give a preference, but nonetheless the passage is ambiguous, even in it's context.

The Pillar commentary says this:
PillarNTC wrote:12. Jesus looks back to the days of John the Baptist. Normally such an expression would refer to a man’s whole lifetime, but this cannot be the meaning here, for John was still alive. It refers to the time in the wilderness when he did his effective preaching and established his reputation, the time when he accomplished his life’s work. That period had inaugurated an era in which the kingdom of heaven suffers violence.30 This does not mean that John inaugurated the kingdom; that was the work of Jesus, and the words point to what was happening in the ministry of Jesus. It is a very difficult expression and has been understood in any one of three general ways: (1) The kingdom is being violently treated (taking the word as a passive), that is, its messengers and preachers and adherents are rejected with violence, which may refer to activities like those of Herod and of Jewish opponents of the gospel. (2) The kingdom suffers violence in the sense that some who look for it (the violent men; people like the Zealots?) are trying to bring it about by violent means; perhaps also they view it as no more than a political kingdom. (3) The kingdom is entered with burning zeal. This may be in the sense, “goes forward with triumphant forceâ€￾ (taking the verb as middle), or the verb may have the meaning “invite urgently, of the ‘genteel constraint imposed on a reluctant guest’â€￾ (BAGD, 2.d). Cf. NIV, “has been forcefully advancingâ€￾ (Carson accepts this sense).31

Violent men32 are those who are carrying out the violence the kingdom suffers. The noun’s normal meaning supports the idea that the sense in the earlier part of the sentence is that of evil people harming the kingdom. If this is the way to take it, Jesus is referring to people who do not understand what God is doing in and through the coming of the kingdom. People like those in power in the world of Judaism act violently in seizing33 what they conceive to be the kingdom and in seeking the best for themselves as they reject what God offers in his Christ. Alternatively we may understand the word to mean putting forth one’s best effort in the kingdom, snatching people away from evil so that they may have membership in the kingdom. This, however, goes against the normal meaning of violent men. We should surely understand this of violent opposition to the kingdom; this means that in the earlier part of the verse “suffers violenceâ€￾ (“has been under violent attack,â€￾ AB) is more probable than “advances strongly.â€￾ Matthew includes these words of Jesus in a context that speaks of the difficulties of John the Baptist and goes on to refer to people who found themselves unable to agree with Jesus or John. It is much more likely in such a context that Matthew understood the words of the opposition of the evil rather than the progress of the good.34 We should also bear in mind that in this chapter the Evangelist emphasizes meekness and lowliness rather than aggression; Jesus does not teach that people enter the kingdom by reason of their vigor and aggressiveness.


Well, and there you have their opinion. They didn't talk about the ambiguity of the text as much, but they hedged their bets and picked the "winning" pony.

Like I said, i might shed some light, but I might just muddy the waters even more. Personally. I would take it as, "Has suffered violence" (Passive) and the "violent lay hold of it by force". I don't see anything particularly wrong with your translation of "plunder" epsecially in light of how Matthew uses the verb (it is best understood as plunder in other places in Matthew).

Hope this helps :?
User avatar
Kopio
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Camas, Wa

Postby Bert » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:56 am

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 :))
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada


Return to Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests