THE MIDDLE VOICE IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT
by
George
J. Cline
Submitted in partial
fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Theology in
Grace
Theological Seminary
May
1983
Digitized by Ted
Hildebrandt,
Title: THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MIDDLE VOICE IN THE NT
Author: George J. Cline
Degree: Master of Theology
Date: May,
1983
Advisers:
John Sproule; George Zemek
The middle voice in Greek has no
exact parallel in the English
language.
Scholars disagree about both its essential significance and
its
various usages as dictated per context. The notion of voice inter-
change,
i.e., usage of a middle voice with an active meaning apart
from
the issue of deponency, is the primary controversy.
Translational
and
interpretive problems apart from voice interchange are treated as
secondary.
Historical argumentation, clarification of the notion of
voice
in general, and a removal of misconceptions regarding the names
of
the voices are the foundation upon which ensuing argumentation rests.
The historical development of the
middle voice as well as usage
invalidate
the concept that the middle voice is middle in meaning between
the
active and passive voices. The middle voice is older than the pas-
sive and has fluctuated in meaning with significant
passage of time.
Regarding
meaning of the middle voice, the suggestions of transitiveness
and
general reflexivity are deemed as inadequate or misleading. Although
the
concepts of special advantage and subject participation in the
results
may at times be involved, these ideas are not inherent to the
middle
itself. In fact, an examination of the true middles in the NT
fails
to reveal a prescriptive definition applicable to every occurrence.
Instead,
a basic notion of the middle voice as an intensification in
some
manner or degree of the relationship between the subject and the
action
expressed by the verb serves as a valid general guideline. The
absence
or presence, degree, and manner of this intensification is deter-
mined
by the historical development of the verb, the verbal idea itself,
and
the particular context.
Voice interchange without semantic
distinction is an infrequent
phenomenon
in the NT. An examination of parallel synoptic passages
reveals
that Mark apparently employs the middle in certain cases simply
as
a stylistic variation. However, no broad spectrum principle is
available,
for in James 4:2, 3 a semantic distinction is recognized,
whereas
in 1 John 5:14, 15 none is apparent. Each particular case of
voice
interchange should be evaluated on its own merits. In addition,
a
taxonomical approach is ultimately unsatisfactory.
Several warnings are appropriate
regarding the middle voice.
First,
not every nuance of the middle can be expressed by English trans-
lation. Second, usage apparently varied among
different authors and in
different
localities. Finally, unwarranted dogmatism and insistence on
classical
distinctions should be avoided. Instead, a safe guideline is
to
interpret the intensification of each true middle in terms of its
context,
verbal idea, and historical development.
Accepted by the Faculty of Grace
Theological Seminary
in partial fulfillment of
requirements for the degree
Master of
Theology
John A Sproule
Adviser
George J. Zemek
Adviser
LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS
AJP American
Journal of Philology
BAGD Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English
Lexicon of
the NT, rev. F.
Danker
BG M.
Zerwick, Biblical Greek
BGHG R. W. Funk, A
Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic
Greek
DNTT C.
Brown, Dictionary of New Testament Theology
GASS J.
Thompson, A Greek Grammar, Accidence and Syntax for Schools
and Colleges
GLHR A.
T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical
Research
GNTG W. F. Howard, J. H. Moulton, and N. Turner, A
Grammar of New
Testament Greek
GOECL
F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, rev. R. Funk
HGG A.
Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar
ICC International
Critical Commentary
IJAL International
Journal of American Linguistics
LPGL G.
W. H. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon
LSJ H.
Liddell, R. Scott, and H. Jones, A Greek English Lexicon
NICNT
New International Commentary
on the New Testament
NTG E.
Jay, New Testament Greek, An Introductory Grammar
MGNT H. Dana and J. Mantey,
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament
TDNT G.
Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological
Dictionary of the
New Testament
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
List
of Abbreviations vii
INTRODUCTION 1
Chapter
I.
BACKGROUND 3
Meaning of Voice 3
Distinctions 5
Emphasis
6
In the
active voice 6
In the
middle voice 7
In the
passive voice 8
History of the Voices 8
Middle Older
than Passive 9
Fluctuation
in Meaning 9
Names of the Voices 10
Summary 12
II.
SIGNIFICANCE 13
Viewpoints 14
Reflexive 14
Proponents 14
Opponents 15
Evaluation 16
Middle in Meaning 16
Special Advantage 18
Participating in the
Results 18
Transitive -
Intransitive 19
Summary 21
Fundamental Concept 21
History of the Verb 22
Idiomatic
expressions 22
Deponency 23
Distinct
semantic shift 24
Form and Tense 24
Summary 26
III.
USAGE 28
Interchangeability 29
Middle for Active 30
James 4:2,3 30
Semantic
difference 30
Semantic
indistinction
32
1 John 5:14,15 33
Parallel Synoptic
Passages 35
Matthew
26:23; Mark 14:20 35
Matthew 19:20; Mark
10:20 36
Matthew.
26:51; Mark 14:47 37
Summary 38
Paired Sentences 38
Using eu[ri<skw
39
Using u[stere<w 39
Using
Additional Verbs 40
Summary 40
Active for Middle 40
Based on
Similarity of Meaning 40
Based on
Classical Precedent 41
Based on
Different Construction 43
Summary 44
Passive as Middle 44
Divisions 45
Direct Middle 47
Causative or Permissive
Middle 47
Indirect 48
Reciprocal 49
Redundant 49
Dynamic or Deponent 49
Summary 51
IV.
TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION 53
Warnings 53
Overtranslation
53
Rigid Rules 54
Unwarranted Dogmatism 54
Authorial and
Geographical Variation 55
Insistence on Classical
Distinctions 55
Guidelines 56
For translation 56
For interpretation 57
V.
CONCLUSION 58
INTRODUCTION
Any thorough attempt to interpret and translate Romans
3:9
causes the exegete to ponder
over the voice of proexo<meqa. Is
the verb
middle or passive, or is it
middle in form yet active in meaning though
not deponent? Similarly, the
aorist middle participle a]pekdusa<menoj
presents exegetical
difficulties (
deponent or is it a true middle
with the sense of having divested himself
of something.1 The resultant theological significance is
considerably
affected by the sense which is
selected.2
As in the above cases, numerous exegetical questions
partially
hinge upon the voice of the
verb. In the case of the middle voice, the
difficulty is increased since
that phenomenon is a refinement of the
Greek language that has no
parallel in English. In common with other
languages of Indo-European
origin, Greek expresses by inflection what
some modern languages, notably
English, express by auxiliaries. Further-
more, grammarians differ in
their understanding of the essential
significance of the middle
voice. Thus, in order to remove some of
these obstacles, three basic
problems are dealt with.
The first difficult problem concerns the elucidation of a
basic
concept regarding the middle
voice. After an analysis of various
1 BAGD, p. 83. They
list a]pekdu<omai as deponent.
2 Homer A. Kent, Jr., Treasures
of Wisdom, Studies in Colossians
and
Philemon
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), pp. 88-89. If the
verb
is not deponent, then it does not properly describe the taking of
power away from evil angels.
1
2
viewpoints, a functional
definition describing a basic concept of the
middle is set forth. Second,
and perhaps the most controversial, are
the problematic areas of usage.
Is the middle voice used with an active
meaning even though the verb is
not deponent? More generally, is the
semantical
distinction among the voices blurred in the NT? In addition,
the effectiveness of
taxonomical approaches to usage are questioned.
Third, what are general
guidelines regarding translation and interpreta-
tion of the
middle voice?
Historical argumentation concerning development of the
voices
combined with a clarification
of the meaning of voice in general lays
the foundation for treating
these problems.
CHAPTER
I
BACKGROUND OF THE MIDDLE VOICE
In order to avoid semantic confusion, it is advantageous
to
clarify the meaning and concept
of voice as it applies to language in
general. For often the voices
are treated categorically, without the
basic notion of voice having
been first clarified. Also, a brief history
of the voices in Greek combined
with a discussion of the terminology
relating to the voices is the
necessary background for the elimination
of certain erroneous
conceptions.1
Meaning
of Voice
The grammatical category of voice as used by linguists
and
grammarians to comprehend and
analyze a specific verbal feature con-
tained in
some languages has enjoyed considerable popularity over the
last few years.2 It is thus not surprising that voice as a
grammatical
category has been variously
defined.3 Yet, if a
descriptive definition
1 Certain older
grammarians are imbued with the notion that the
middle
voice has a middle signification between the active and passive
voices.
See, for example, Richard Valpy, The Elements of
Greek Grammar
(New
York: W. E. Dean, 1837), p. 82; Charles Anthon, A Grammar of the
Greek
Language
(New York: Harper and Bros., 1855), p. 124. They appear
to
follow the precedent set by Claude Lancelot, A New Method of Learning
the
Greek Tongue,
2 vols. trans. Thomas Nugent (
reprinted;
2 Jan Svartvik,
On Voice in the English Verb (Hague: Mouton and
advent
of transformational grammatical theory.
3 Robert J. Di Pietro, Language Structures in Contrast (Rowley:
Newbury
House Publishers, 1971), pp. 75-77. A uniform descriptive
3
4
of voice is to be useful in
analyzing a language, it should be suffi-
ciently
general so that it does not either impose semantic restrictions
or add nuances that are not
inherent in a language.1 As pertaining to
Greek, many grammarians discuss
the problems of voice without clarifying
the concept of voice itself or
finding any single cohesive principle
for the category.2 When the notion of voice itself is clarified
it is
usually defined descriptively
in terms of the relationship between the
subject of a sentence and the
verbal action of its predicate.3
Simply
defined, voice is the
relationship between the subject of a sentence and
the action expressed by the
verb.4 The various voices indicate a range
of possible relationships
between subject and predicate. Yet, strictly
definition
of voice applicable to all languages is difficult to obtain.
For
example, see Alice Werner, Introductory Sketch of the Bantu
Languages (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner and
Co., 1919), pp.
146-55.
At least eleven different derived forms of the verb have been
found
which may be described as voices.
1 Archibald T. Robertson,
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament
in
the
Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1934), pp.
31-40
(hereafter cited as GLHR). He appropriately warns that the seat
of
authority in language is not the books about language, but it is the
people
who use the language.
2 Frank E. B. Leddusire, "A Comparative Study of Middle Voice in
Koine Greek and Reflexive Verbs in Old Russian
through Case Grammar
Description"
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1972),
p.
26.
3 For an exception, see
Fred W. Householder, Kostas Kazazis, and
Andreas
Koutsoudas, "Reference Grammar of Literary Dhimotiki", IJAL 30
(April
1964):102. They define voice as that which refers to the direc-
tion of the action expressed by the verb. Although
this directional
concept
may differentiate the active and passive voices, it appears to
be
inadequate for the middle.
4 Eric G. Jay, New Testament
Greek, an Introductory Grammar,
(London:
SPCK, 1958), p. 14 (thereafter cited as NTG); Robert W. Funk,
A
Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek, 2d corrected ed.
vol.
2 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973), p. 395 (hereafter cited as
BGHG).
This definition does not appear to impose upon the Greek voices
meanings
that they do not contain.
5
speaking, voice is the property
of the verbal-idea rather than of the
subject.1
Distinctions
If a definition of voice is chosen as the relationship
between
the subject and the action
expressed by its verb, then for the sake of
clarity and consistency, the
voices should be defined in terms of that
relationship.2 The active voice represents the subject as
performing
the action of the verb. The
passive voice represents the subject as
acted upon, and does not act.3
However, the middle voice denotes that
the subject is in some special
manner involved or interested in the
action of the verb.4 Stated slightly differently, in the middle
voice
there is an intensification in
some manner between the subject and the
action expressed by the verb.5 The following examples of lou<w illustrate
1
Greek
New Testament
(New York: Macmillan Co., 1955), pp. 154-55 (here-
after
cited as MGNT); Johann M. Stahl, Kritischhistorische
Syntax des
griechischen Verbums
der classichen Zeit (
Universitatbuchhandlung, 1907), p. 42.
2 For consistency and
clarity, see Herbert W. Smyth, Greek
Grammar,
rev. Gordon M. Messing (
1956),
pp. 389-94; Basil L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of
Classical Greek,
pt.
1 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), p. 61-70.
3 John Thompson, A
Greek Grammar, Accidence and Syntax for
Schools
and Colleges
(New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1903), p. 310
(hereafter
cited as GASS).
4 Gildersleeve,
Greek Syntax, 1:64.
5 A list of definitions
of numerous authors was compiled. These
definitions
of the voices could be divided as to the central theme. It
appears
that the clearest definitions consistently define the voices in
terms
of the relationship of subject and action. They virtually all
agree
that there is a difference between the relationship in the
active
voice and that of the middle. The relationship in the middle is
more
intense.
6
the differences between active,
middle and passive voice functions,
respectively.1
1. h[
a]delfh> e@lousen
to> te<knon. The
sister bathed the child.
2. h[
a]delfh> e]lou<sato. The sister bathed (herself).2
3. to> te<knon
e]lou<qh u[po> th?j a]delfh?j. The
child was bathed by the sister.
Emphasis
The difference of emphasis between voices has been termed
one of
theme, salience, or focus of
attention.3 Voice per se
does not appear
to place an emphasis either on
the subject, the verbal action, or their
relationship. The subject or
verb may be emphasized by contextual
factors such as word--order,
but this is not the function of voice.4
In The Active Voice
After suggesting that the prehistoric distinction between
the
active and the middle voice
involved an accent on the root in the active
form and on the personal ending
in the middle form, James Moulton
1 Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament,
although
not found in the NT, are particularly lucid because they emplo-
the
same verb in the indicative mood. However, similar examples may be
found
in the NT using lou<w, but some examples are
in participial form.
For
example, see e@lousen in Acts 16:33 for
active; leloume<noj
in John
13:10
for passive; lousame<nh
in 2 Peter 2:22 for middle.
2 This use of the middle
as reflexive is only one of the possible
functions
of the middle voice. No single example can be cited to illus-
trate the broad spectrum of possibilities.
3 Herbert H. Clark, Semantics
and Comprehension (Hague: Mouton
and
the
emphasis of actives and passives in English, see p. 118.
4 GLHR, p. 798.
His statement that the use of voice is to
direct
attention to the subject, not to the object, may be misleading.
It
should be noted that this statement is made regarding
transitiveness.
7
conjectures that originally
in the active the action was stressed, in
the middle the agent.1
However, this possible historical
distinction
does not appear to be the case
in NT usage as illustrated by John 14:1.
pisteu<ete ei]j to>n qeo<n, kai> ei]j e]me> pisteu<ete. By
means of a chiasm the
two verbs are placed in two
emphatic positions, stressing the durative
action of believing.2 In the following verse ei#pon is not
in an emphatic
position, and it is difficult
to envision that the active voice of ei#pon
emphasizes the act of speaking.
It simply indicates that Jesus, the
subject, is the performer of
the action.
In The Middle Voice
Similarly, the assertion that the middle voice stresses the
agent needs
to be either qualified or avoided. Dana and Mantey
carefully
explain this notion with the
following considerations.
While the active voice emphasizes
the action, the middle stresses
the agent. It, in some way, relates
the action more intimately to
the subject. Just how the action is
thus related is not indicated
by the middle voice, but must be
detected from the context of the
verbal idea.3
However, it appears possible to
relate the action more intimately
to the subject without
necessarily stressing the subject, i.e., the
agent of the action being the
focus of attention rather than the rela-
tionship
between the subject and the action. For example, katalamba<nw
in the active voice means to
seize or overtake, but in the middle denotes
grasping for oneself or with
reference to oneself, and thus to
comprehend. A mental as opposed
to a physical application of katalamba<nw
1 GNTG, p. 512.
2 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of
(Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1943), p. 969.
3 MGNT, p. 157.
8
is introduced by the middle in
this way, since mental action is
especially confined within the
sphere of the agent.1 Hence
the subject
of this verb in the middle
voice indicates both the performer of the
action and that to whom or for
which the action is performed.2 If
this
notion is justifiably
considered as stress, it is certainly far less
emphatic and of a different
nature than the stress of a subject as indi-
cated by a
personal pronoun as in the following example. ]Egw> de>
katelabo<mhn mhde>n a@cion
au]to>n qana<tou pepraxe<nai. "But when I
understood that he had committed nothing worthy of
death" (Acts 25:25).3
Thus, if one wishes to speak of special attention being
focused
on the subject by the middle
voice, it is only in the sense that the
subject both performs
the action and is that to whom or for which the
action is performed.
In The Passive Voice
Similarly, the passive voice simply represents the
subject as
being acted upon. Any notion of
emphasis regarding the subject, verb,
or their relationship is due to
contextual factors.
History of
the Voices
The question regarding the antiquity and development of
the
voice forms has not been fully
established, and the gaps in knowledge
are often the areas of much conjecture.4 Yet there does appear to be
1 Wilbert F. Howard,
James H. Moulton, and Nigel Turner, A Grammar
of
New Testament Greek,
vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1906),
p.
158 (hereafter cited as GNTG).
2 Goetchius,
Language of the New Testament, p. 104.
3 This author is
responsible for the translations of Greek
statements
throughout this thesis.
4 GNTG, 1:152-53.
9
sufficient historical
information to establish that the middle is prior
to the passive in historical
development.
Middle
Older Than Passive
Although it is unknown whether the active or the middle
voice
was the first to develop, it is
generally recognized that primitive
Greek, as in other Indo-Germanic
languages, had only two voice forms,
active and middle.1 The middle form was subsequently more fully devel-
oped into
the passive.2 During the
Attic period a complete system of
three voices existed.3 The ensuing tendency during the Hellenistic
per-
iod was to
merge the middle and passive forms into a single form with the
passive gaining ascendancy.4
In modern Greek, there is no middle form.5
Fluctuation
in Meaning
Although John Thompson asserts that the original sense of
the
middle form was reflexive, it
appears that this is questionable.6
Yet
1 Karl Brugmann, A Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic
Languages, vol. 4, trans. R.
Seymour Conway and W. H. D. Rouse (
B.
Westerman and Co., 1895), p. 515; Satya
S. Misra, A Comparative
Grammar
of Sanskrit, Greek and Hittite, with a Foreward by Sunuti K.
Chatterji (Calcutta: World Press Private, 1968),
p. 90.
2 James H. Moulton, An
Introduction to the Study of New Testament
Greek, 5th ed., rev. Henry G.
Meecham (London: Epworth Press, 1955),
p.
41. For a different viewpoint, see GASS, p. 305. Yet he still recog-
nizes middle is older than passive.
3 Anthony N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar (
Macmillan
and Co., 1897), p. 362 (hereafter cited as HGG)
4 Friedrich Blass and
Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W.
Funk
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 161 (hereafter
cited
as GOECL). For probable causes of this merger, see HCG, p. 362.
5 Irene P. Warburton,
"On the Verb in Modern Greek" (Ph.D.
dissertation,
6 GNTG 1:156.
Although a reflexive meaning ultimately accrued to
the
middle form, it would be wrong to assume that it was originally
10
whether or not this is true for
certain periods, it is not true of NT
usage.1 The voices do vary in their usage during
different stages of
the language.2 Although in the NT the middle forms may still
retain a
wide field of usage for all the
senses found in classical use, there are
examples contrary to the
general trend.3 Thus, one
should not evaluate
usage of the middle voice form
in the NT solely by classical standards
or consider NT writers as
lacking in their understanding of certain
grammatical distinctions.4
Names
of the Voices
The names and earliest descriptions of the verbal
category of
voice have been traced to
Dionysius Thrax.5 Grammarians
have objected
to the terminology of the Greek
voices as not being clearly descriptive
of usage. Active is not
distinct for the other voices also express
there.
For a discussion of the controversy regarding reflexivity in
voice,
see Leddusire, "Middle Voice," pp. 36-37.
1 C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed.
(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 24.
2 GLHR, p. 799.
3 Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek, adapted from the 4th Latin
ed.
by Joseph Smith (Rome: Pontificii Instititi
Biblica, 1963), pp.
75-76
(hereafter cited as BG).
4 GLHR, p. 805;
Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (
At
the Clarendon Press, 1889), pp. 2-8.
5 Dionysius Thrax, Grammatici Graeci, vol. 1 (Lipsiae: In
Aedibus B. G. Teubneri,
1838; reprint ed.,
Verlagsbuchhandlung Hildescheinz,
1965), pp. 48-49. His term for voice,
diaqe<sij,
includes the three terms ene<rgeia meso<thj and pa<qoj.
For
further
history of the terminology, see F. E. Thompson, A Syntax of
Attic
Creek
(London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1907), pp. 158-59; Basil
L.
Gildersleeve, "Stahl's Syntax of the Greek
Verb," American Journal
of
Philology,
29 (1908):275.
11
action.1 Furthermore, the active does not always
express an action,
but may denote a state.2 Concerning the middle, it does not stand in
between the active and passive
in meaning.3 But even more
objections
are raised against the name of
deponent.4 This term is
derived from the
Latin depono
meaning to lay aside, since these verbs appear to have laid
aside and lost the active form.5 Yet certain verbs are found in the
active form only or the middle
form only, and thus Moulton would prefer
to apply the name of deponent
to both of these classes.6 Although
it
may be recognized that the
terms are not clearly descriptive of usage,
the solution does not appear to
be the coining of new terms in place of
those which are imbedded in
grammars and history. Instead, these terms
should be properly defined in
terms of their usage.
1 GLHR, p. 331.
2 Friedrich Blass, Grammar
of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. rev.
and
enl., trans. Henry Thackeray (London: Macmillan and Co., 1905), pp.
180-81.
However, linking verbs are best understood apart from the active
or
passive idea. For example, see BGHG, 2:398-99.
3 GLHR, p. 331.
4 Certain grammarians
even attempt to make deponents a different
category
from middles. For example, see George B. Winer, A
Grammar
Idiom
of the New Testament,
7th ed. enl. and imp. Gottlieb Lunemann
(Andover:
Warren F. Draper, 1869), p. 258. He proposes that from
middle
verbs are to be carefully distinguished deponents. To eliminate
the
confusion regarding deponents, sometimes a non-deponent is called a
true
middle. For example, see BGHG 2:398. Others use the term
defective
rather than deponent.
5 NTG, p. 85. But
in some cases these verbs never had an active
form.
A deponent is more accurately define as a verb which has an
active
meaning, but only middle (or middle and passive) forms.
6 GNTG, 1:153.
12
Summary
The grammatical category of voice indicates how the
subject is
related to the action expressed
by the verb. The active voice repre-
sents the
subject as performing the action of the verb. It simply
represents the subject as
acting without necessarily stressing the
action. The passive voice
simply represents the subject as being acted
upon. The middle voice
indicates an intensification in some manner
between the subject and the
action expressed by the verb, i.e., the
subject is in some special
manner involved or interested in the action
of the verb. Although certain
grammarians assume that the middle voice
stresses the agent of the
action, this is valid only in the sense that
the subject both
performs the action and is that to whom or for which
the action is performed. An
examination of the history of the voices
invalidates the erroneous
concept that the middle voice is middle in
meaning between the active and
passive, for the middle form is older
than the passive form. Also
from the historical survey it is seen that
the voices have varied in their
usage during different stages of the
language. Thus classical
standards, by themselves, are not a proper
criterion for evaluating NT
usage. Finally, it is recognized that the
names of the voices are not
clearly descriptive of their function, and
one should not be misled by the
names. Instead, the terms should be
properly defined as regarding
their usage.
CHAPTER II
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MIDDLE VOICE
Up to this point it has been briefly assumed, but not
proven,
that the middle voice denotes
that the subject is in some special manner
involved or interested in the
action of the verb. Stated slightly dif-
ferently, in
the middle voice there is an intensification in some manner
or degree between the subject
and the action expressed by the verb.1
However, this assumption needs
to be both clarified as well as qualified.
For it is correctly maintained
that it is scarcely possible to formulate
a single definition of its
basal function which could be applied to all
its actual occurrences.2
For such a definition, when applied to
particular cases, is subject to
limitation or even contradiction.3
An
inductive approach to the study
of true middles appears to confirm this,
for no single principle has
been found which captures the meaning of
every true middle.4 Moulton even asserts that it is useless to
exercise
1 For the difficulty
involved in selecting a theoretical frame-
work
for the study of voice problems, see Leddusire,
"Middle Voice,"
p.
8. He rejects the traditional descriptive approach and adopts gener-
ative transformational grammar in the tradition of
Noam Chomsky as the
only
adequate basis. However, traditional grammar, which defines parts
of
speech by their meaning and function, is fully capable of providing a
functional
basis for the formulation of a workable definition.
2 MGNT, p. 157.
3 Blass, Grammar of
New Testament Greek, p. 186.
4 A printout of all the
middles in the NT was obtained from
project
GRAMCORD. The printout of the middles was in two separate lists,
being
separated on the basis of deponency. The majority of the
middles
in the NT are deponent.
13
14
one's ingenuity in interpreting
every middle, for the development in
some cases never progressed
beyond the rudimentary stage.1
Thus, this assumption of
intensification by the middle will be
first clarified and qualified
by surveying different viewpoints among
grammarians. Second, examples
and data that do not fall under this
general guideline will be
examined.
Viewpoints
Although some grammars do have a general functional
definition
of the middle voice, the
following viewpoints of mediality are either
inadequate, misleading, or too
vague to provide a clear operational
framework.
Reflexive
The term "reflexive," as found among different
grammarians, was
rarely limited to a directly reflexive
sense, i.e., the action is
directly referred back to the
subject. The notions of reciprocity,
indirectness, and self-interest
are sometimes included.2 Because
of this
broad semantic extension, this
is a difficult concept to analyze as
regarding its involvement in
any basic notion of mediality.
Proponents
Jelf clearly maintains the
reflexive position.
The essential sense which runs
throughout the middle reflexive
verb is Self--the action of the verb has
immediate reference to
self. This is the proper generic notion of
all middle verbs, and
1 GNTG 1:158. His
statement regards the category of dynamic mid-
dles. Yet this does not mean that a general function
does not belong to
the
middle voice. Usage over time may fix a different idiomatic meaning
to
a middle, and thus it does not reflect the general function.
2 HGG, p. 360.
15
the particular sense of each middle verb
must be-determined by dis-
covering the relation in which that notion
of self stands to the
notion of the verb.1
Curtius and Sonnenschein
also maintain that the basic notion of
the middle is primarily, but
not exclusively, reflexive.2 Evidence
for
this position is not lacking
among the middles of the NT.3
Opponents
Jay denies a reflexive usage of the middle in the NT in
the
direct sense. "The beginner is apt to jump to the
conclusion that the
Greek Middle Voice is
reflexive. This is not so. It denotes that the
subject performs the action for
himself, but not to himself."4 However,
the following two examples of
directly reflexive usage invalidate his
assertions.5
1 William E, Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language, 2d ed. 2
vols.
(Oxford: James Wright, 1851), p. 14. Yet he maintains that
reflexivity
is distinct from reciprocity and divides middles into two
categories:
reflexive and reciprocal. For a similar position, see
Raphael
Kuhner, Grammar of the Greek Language, for the Use of High
Schools
and Colleges,
trans. Bela B. Edwards and Samuel H. Taylor
(Andover:
Allen, Morrill and Wardwell, 1844), p. 330.
2 Georg Curtius, The Greek Verb: Its Structure and Development,
trans.
Augustus S. Wilkins and Edwin B. England (
1880),
p. 55. He uses the term "reflexive" in the broadest sense of the
term,
not simply the direct passing of the action back onto the subject.
Also
see Basil F. C. Atkinson, The Greek Language (
Faber,
1931), p. 136; Edward A. Sonnenschein, A Greek
Grammar (
Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner
and Co., 1914), p. 274.
3 For specific examples
see pp. 47-48.
4 NTG, p. 14.
5 For a different view of
a]ph<cato, see CNTG 1:155; Moule, An
Idiom
Book of the New Testament Greek, p. 24. But the suggestion of the
English
intransitive choke is not warranted by the details of the
parallel
account in Acts 1:18. Secondly, it has been observed that the
only
middle for self-murder is a]ph<cato which seems to have
been the most
natural
form of self-murder. Gildersleeve, Syntax of
Classical Greek,
1:64.
16
1. kai> a]pelqw>n a]ph<gcato
"And after he departed, he hung himself"
(Matt 27:5)
2. o!ti yu?xoj h#n, kai>
e]qermai<nonto h@n de> kai> o[ Pe<troj met ] au]tw?n e[stw?j
qermaino<menoj "Because it was cold and they were
warming themselves;
And Peter also was with them standing
and warming himself" (John
18:18).
As regarding reflexivity in the broader sense, Leddusire has
concluded that although Koine mediality can include
underlying reflexive
constructions, the notion of
reflexivity should not be considered the
primary motivation for voice.1
Evaluation
Although Robertson observes that reflexive is a better.designa-
tion of the
middle than the tern: "middle" if direct reflexive is not
meant, the reflexive notion
does not appear to be sufficient in relating
a basic concept regarding the
middle voice for several reasons.2
The
sense of indirect reflexivity
is very vague and differs from author to
author.3 It is unclear as regarding its termination
point, for when
does a middle cease to be
indirectly reflexive. Second, it is very
imprecise regarding the
function of voice. The notion of emphasis,
either subject, verbal-action,
or an interaction, is not specified.4
Middle
in Meaning
The position maintained by Anthon, Valpy,
and Lancelot that the
middle voice form is middle in
meaning is modified by Wenham.
1 Leddusire,
"Middle Voice," p. 56.
2 Ibid., p. 331.
3 For example, see Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax 1:64. In some of
its
uses, the middle corresponds to the English reflexive, but the
signification
is much wider and shades off from what is practically a
direct
reflexive until it ceases to present any translatable difference
from
the active.
4 For discussion of this problem see the
section on emphasis, p. 6.
17
Though some forms of the Middle are the
same as the Passive, the
Middle is in meaning much closer to the
Active than the Passive.
In fact, the meaning of Active and Middle
are often indistinguish-
able. It is better to think of the Middle
as a sort-of-Active than
as a sort-of-Passive.1
This modification, although not as directly erroneous as
Anthon's
position, is still inadequate.
Sometimes the middle may appear to be
closer to a passive idea than
an active notion.2 Common ground between
the middle and passive is to be
observed in the examples of which a
translation submit to or
let oneself be is often suggested for the middle.
For example, a]dikei?sqe is
present middle or passive in form (1 Cor 6:7).
BAGD, apparently taking this
verb as a middle, offers the translation
let oneself be wronged.3 Zerwick understands
this verb to be passive
and translates suffer an
injustice.4 The context
appears to place the
responsibility on the subject
of a]dikei?sqe, and
hence the middle is
appropriate. They ought to have
submitted to injustice, to have ignored
their rights, to have allowed
themselves to be defrauded.5 In
this case,
the subject not only performs
an action, i.e., letting or permitting
oneself, but also by
implication is acted upon, i.e., is wronged.
Although this is not the same
as the passive be wronged in every case,
1 John H. Wenham, The
Elements of New Testament Greek (
Valpy, and Lancelot, which were discounted via
historical argumentation,
see
p. 3.
2 GNTG, 1:162.
3 BAGD, p. 17. The
verb, when taken as passive, is translated as
be
wronged, be unjustly treated (Acts 7:24; 1 Cor
6:7).
4 Mary Grosvenor and Max Zerwick, A
Grammatical Analysis of the
Greek
New Testament,
vol. 2 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979),
p.
508.
5 James L. Boyer, For
A World Like Ours, Studies in 1 Corinthians
(Winona
Lake, BMH Books, 1971), p. 70.
18
for one can be wronged by force
without being a cooperative participant,
Moulton correctly notes that
the dividing line between middle and passive
in such cases is a fine one at
best.1
Special
advantage
The attempt to precisely describe and define the
relationship of
the subject to the
verbal-action in the middle voice may lead one into
error. Although the agent of
the action may be stressed, this does not
mean that the action described
is necessarily of special advantage or
significance to the subject as
proposed by Jay.2 He hung
himself,
a]ph<cato, was certainly not of special advantage or
significance to Judas
(Matt 27:5).
Similarly, it is difficult to envision that special
advantage or
significance for the subject is
being emphasized by ai]wni<an lu<trwsin
eu[ra<menoj
"having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12). Instead, he
found the way. Jesus is
represented as having secured eternal
redemption by himself.3
Participating in the Results
Dana and Mantey comment that
the middle voice is that use of
the verb which describes the
subject as participating in the results
of
the action.4 However, they carefully expand this concept
by adding that
the middle, in some way,
relates the action more intimately to the
1 GNTG 1:162. Also
perite<mnhsqe in Gal 5:2.
2 NTG, p. 14.
3 GLHR, p. 809.
For a different rendering of this middle see
James
Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Epistle to
the
Hebrews,
ICC (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1924), p. 121.
4 MGNT, p. 157.
19
subject. The precise manner in
which the action is thus related to the
subject is not indicated by the
middle voice.1 Similarly,
Gideon and
to the subject as in some way
participating in the results of the ac-
tion.2 Subject participation is clearly not always
the case, since the
middle may represent the agent
as voluntarily yielding himself to the
results of the action, or
seeking to secure the results of the action in
his own interest.3 For example, the woman does not appear
to be parti-
cipating in the
results of the command keira<sqw,
"For if a woman will
not wear a veil, let her
also have her hair cut off" (1 Cor
11:6).
Thus, while subject participating in the results may at
times
be involved, this is not a
fundamental concept regarding the middle.4
Transitive -
Intransitive
Transitivity has been associated with voice as early as
Jelf.5
The issue of transitivity
obscures the notion of voice, and makes the
discovery of any general notion
of voice more difficult.6 To
state the
difference between active and
middle as merely that of transitive and
1 Ibid., p. 157.
2 Virtus
E. Gideon and Curtis Vaughan, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), pp. 91-92. More generally
it
(the middle voice) represents the subject as acting in relation to
himself--either
on himself, for himself, or by himself.
3 MGNT, p. 160.
The example in 1 Cor 11:6 was chosen because the
foam
is middle aorist imperative, and thus the problem in other examples
concerning
identity of a middle-passive form is avoided.
4 Even this particular
nuance is not an inherent feature of the
middle.
The precise relationship of the subject with reference to him-
self
is not indicated by the middle itself.
5 Jelf,
A Grammar of the Greek Language, pp. 10-15.
6 Leddusire,
"Middle Voice," pp. 26-30. His analysis of this
problem
is particularly lucid.
20
intransitive is incorrect.1 Voice per se does not deal with the ques-
tion of
transitive or intransitive action.2
Robertson rejected transi-
tivity as being
essential to voice.3 His
forceful argument consists of
four observations. First, any
one or all of the voice forms may be in
association with transitive
verbs. Second, an inherently intransitive
verb like gi<nomai can appear in any voice form without its
intransitivity
being lost.4 Third, a verb may be both transitive and
intransitive in
the same voice. Fourth,
transitivity varies in different languages
because it relates to the
restrictions of a particular verb.5
However,
both transitivity and voice are
properties of the verb.6 But transiti-
vity is
discerned by the relation of the verb to an object, and is
determined by the nature of the
verbal idea. Voice, also a property of
the verbal idea, indicates how
the subject is related to the action.7
Summary
A survey and analysis of selected viewpoints among
grammarians
has yielded the following
results. Although direct reflexivity does
1 Atkinson, The Greek
Language, p. 136.
2 Smyth, Greek Grammar,
p. 393.
3 GLHR, pp.
330-31. These arguments are clearly summarized and
presented
with examples by Leddusire, "Middle Voice,"
pp. 28-30. He
adds
a fifth argument that intransitive middle or reflexive verbs may
in
fact represent an underlying verb with an object. This would mean
that
they are only overtly intransitive, while in underlying grammar
they
serve a transitive-like function.
4 e]ge<neto middle deponent, to>
ge<gonoj active, genhqeh<tw
passive.
5 GLHR, p. 330.
6 There are exceptions.
Some verbs do vary according to form.
Thus,
i!sthmi, a regularly transitive
or causative verb, has an
intransitive
sense in the perfect and second aorist. For discussion,
see
Samuel Green, Handbook of the Greek New Testament (
Fleming
H. Revell Co., 1880), p. 292.
7 MGNT, pp.
154-55.
21
occur among NT middle forms in
a few cases, the reflexive notion does
not appear to be sufficient in relating
a basic concept of the middle.
The suggestion of indirect
reflexivity is too general and vague, and the
usage of this term differs
among various authors. Also indirect reflexi-
vity is
very imprecise regarding the function of voice, for the notion
of emphasis is not specified.
Subject participation in the results of
the action at times may occur
as a usage of the middle, but this is not
a universal concept inherent in
the middle voice itself. The precise
manner in which the action is
related to the subject is not indicated by
the middle voice. Likewise,
transitivity is not a concept essential to
voice. Voice does not deal with
the question of transitive or intransi-
tive
action. Also the middle voice is not middle in meaning between
active and passive. Nor is the
suggestion that the middle voice is in
meaning much closer to the
active than the passive particularly helpful,
for sometimes the middle may
appear to be closer to a passive idea than
an active notion.
Fundamental Concept
The suggestion, however, that the middle voice denotes
the sub-
ject in
some special manner involved or interested in the action of the
verb does appear to be a valid
principle.2 It serves as a
general
guideline when applied to true
middles.3 Yet even this
general notion
1 MGNT, pp.
154-55.
2 Gildersleeve,
Greek Syntax, 1:64. For a brief summary of
opinions
that attempt to represent a similar notion, see MGNT, p. 157.
3 Again, it is important
to note the basis upon which this sugges-
tion is considered valid. Since an inductive
approach to the study of
the
middles of the NT has failed to reveal a basic principle that is
applicable
to every middle, the best functional definition by a grammar-
ian that
appears to be valid in the majority of cases was selected.
22
does not cover every middle,
and thus needs to be qualified by the
following considerations.1
History of the
Verb
A survey of the history of a verb from its earliest
traceable
origin down to the time of the
usage under consideration may indicate
that there is no exegetical
significance of the middle voice in terms of
this general guideline. For a
historical survey of the verb may reveal
an idiomatic usage of the
middle that has become established over time,
a possible deponent usage not
necessarily indicated by a lexicon, or a
distinct semantic shift of
meaning from active to middle.
Idiomatic Expressions
The verb poie<w in its middle form followed by a verbal
noun in
classical Greek formed a
periphrasis for the simple corresponding verb.2
Although bebai<a poiei?sqai is
rendered by Lenski as continuous making
sure and firm for ourselves in 2
Peter 2:2, the expression may simply
have the same sense as the verb
bebaio<w.3 Another idiom listed by
Robertson is a future middle
form of a verb which has a passive
meaning.4 On the
basis of the future middle form being used in
1 For a more extensive
treatment of these issues, see chapter
three,
"Usage of the Middle Voice."
2 Smyth, Greek Grammar,
p. 391. See pp. 22-23.
3 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of I and II Epistles of
Peter,
the three Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude, (
the
basis of historical precedent, they state that the middle of poie<w
serves
mostly as a periphrasis of the simple verbal idea.
4 GLHR, p. 819. Considering
the rather large list of verbs that
once
used the middle future as passive in sense, the idiom is rare in
the
NT.
23
passive sense by Homer,
Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophen, Plato and
Demosthenes, as well as having
been identified as occurring in the LXX,
he suggests the possibility
that peribalei?tai in Rev
3:5 and a]poko<yontai
in Gal 5:12 may be
examples of this idiom.1
Deponency
Also a survey of the historical evolution of a verb may
indicate
a prior history of deponent
usage.2 For even if a verb
occurs in both
an active form and a middle
form in the same tense among literature
written within the same time
period, this still may not be an indication
of a true middle, i.e.,
non-deponent middle. For example, in classical
Greek of the Attic period the
future form of a]kou<w is regularly deponent
as a]kou<somai.3
However, in the NT the verb is usually
cited as active
in its second principal part as
a]kou<sw.4 The verb only occurs eight
times in the future tense in
the NT with four forms being active and
four forms being middle.5 Since there is no obvious nuance
intended by
1 Ibid., p. 819. For
strong argumentation against this idiom in
Gal
5:12, see John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek
Text of the Epistle
of
Paul to the Galatians (
ed.;
cited,
however, to simply illustrate the importance of considering the
historical
evolution of a verb as one of the factors to be considered
when
evaluating the possible exegetical signifiance of a
middle form.
2 See pp. 49-50 for
further discussion.
3 Joint Association of
Classical Teachers Greek Course,
Greek:
Grammar, Vocabulary and Exercises (
University
Press, 1978), p. 284.
4 MGNT, p. 255; J.
Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for
Beginners, (Toronto: Macmillan
Co., 1951), p. 255. However, both forms
for
the future are listed in GNTG 2:227.
5 Alfred A. Geden and William F. Moulton, eds., A Concordance to
the
Greek Testament,
rev. Harold K. Moulton (
24
the future middle a]kou<somai in its
contexts, the historical precedent of
deponency in
classical Greek contributes to the decision that these
middle futures in the NT are
deponent.1
Distinct semantic shift
Occasionally the middle form of a verb expresses a
distinct
semantic change as compared to
the active form and is best translated
as an active voice with a
different meaning.2 These
distinct differ-
ences, such
as a@rxw (I rule) but a@rxomai (I begin) usually pose no
problem as they have well-known
lexical meanings. However, similar
shifts occur for verbs that are
not as well known. For example, the
imperfect a]pelu<onto in
Acts 28:25 apparently simply means were going
away, departing.3
Form
and Tense
The Koine Greek verbal system
consists of two forms, the finite
and the non-finite. Finite
forms are sub-categorized by moods, wheres
non-finite forms are subdivided
as infinitival, participial, and verbal-
adjectival in -teoj.4
Of the non-finite forms, the infinitive
1 GLHR, p. 333. He
cites at least 15 verbs which had the future
in
the middle form as deponent in classical Greek but have an active
future
form in the NT. In the case of a]kou<w, apparently this
transition
is
not complete. Also note zh<sw
and zh<somai
in NTG, p. 319.
2 GLHR, p. 804.
His attempts to trace the middle meaning of
verbs
of this type to an original reflexive sense are not always
possible.
For example, game<w (I marry, used of the bridegroom) but
game<omai (I marry, used of the
bride). Similarly gra<fw
(I enrol) but
gra<fomai
(I indict).
3 BAGD, p. 96. A
sufficient number of passages are cited with a
parallel
meaning. Although it is not difficult to envision how this
sense
could have been developed in the middle as compared to one of the
active
meanings, to send away.
4 Leddusire,
"Middle Voice," p. 42.
25
apparently did not originally
possess voice functions.1 Robertson
postu-
lates that
gradually by analogy the infinitive forms came to be
associated with the voices in
the moods.2 Gildersleeve warns against
always
assuming voice significance in an infinitive.
The infinitive being a verbal noun is not
so strictly bound by the
voices as the finite form. The infinitive
as a complement to
adjectives and the so-called epexegetic
infinitive often coincide
with the English idiom in which good to
eat is good for food.3
In this regard Robertson appears correct in asserting
that there
is no special voice
significance in fagei?n in the
phrase kai> ei#pen
doqh?nai
au]th? fagei?n
"and he said that something to eat be given to her"
(Mark 5:43). For the infinitive fagei?n, being a verbal-noun, serves
as
the accusative of general
reference of doqh?nai.4
However, his remark
that after the infinitive is
fully developed its voice appears exactly
as in the moods is not
particularly lucid. How does one determine in
the NT if an infinitive is "fully-developed"
or in primitive form?5
Regarding voice in a participle
it appears correct to understand that
all the nuances of the voices
appear in the participle, and the voices
in the participle parallel
usage in the finite verb itself.6
1 GNTG, 1:203.
2 GLHR, p. 1079.
3 Gildersleeve,
Greek Syntax, 1:63.
4 GLHR, pp.
1079-80.
5 Few grammarians deal
with this issue. But see Leddusire
"Middle
Voice," p. 42. He cogently argues that the voice idea is re-
duced in infinitive forms, perhaps because of the
derived nature of the
infinitive
phrase, the usual deletion of the subject of the infinitive
phrase,
and the absence of person indicators.
6 GLHR, p.
1110-11. This assertion is supported by the evidence
that
voice appears in the earliest Greek participles as well as Sanskrit.
Also
the examples cited by Robertson give ample proof of active, middle,
and
passive voice distinctions in participles in the NT. Furthermore,
no
participles have been encountered which do not admit a possible voice
distinction, nor has any
grammarian been found to suggest otherwise.
26
Concerning voice in a finite form a change of mood does
not
appear to cause a fluctuation
in the significance of the voice.1
However, a change in tense may
affect the significance of a middle form
on the basis of deponency. A verb which is not deponent in one principal
part may be deponent in
another part.2
Summary
Although no single principle was discovered from an
inductive
study of middles in the NT that
is valid for every occurrence of a true
middle, the suggestion that the
middle voice depicts the subject as in
some special manner involved or
interested in the action of the verb
serves as a general
guideline in the majority of cases in the NT.
However, this significance
should not be automatically attributed to
every true middle. A survey of
the historical evolution of a verb may
indicate idiomatic usage of the
middle, possible deponent indications
which may not be lexically
cited, or a distinct semantic shift that has
become fixed over a limited
time period.
Also the form and tense need to be considered when
evaluating
voice significance. Although
all finite forms of a verb and the parti-
ciple
demonstrate distinct voice functions, this is not always the case
of an infinitive, especially
when used as a complement to adjectives and
in epexegetical
usage. Regarding tense, it is important to know the
principal parts of a verb. For
a shift from active to middle voice form
1 The monumental task of
deductively studying mood shifts to
ascertain
this assertion has not been done. However, again, no negating
evidence
has been encountered nor has any grammarian been found to
suggest
otherwise.
2 This is especially true
regarding future deponent middles of
many
non-deponent present tense verbs. For example see the list in
NTG,
318-22.
27
with a shift in tense, such as
present to future, may simply be a
transition to a deponent form.
CHAPTER III
USAGE
OF THE MIDDLE VOICE
Although the middle voice signals an intensification in
some
degree or manner between
subject and action expressed by its verb, what
this precise intensification
is, the middle voice per se does not
indicate.1 The nature of this intensification must be
derived from the
context, the historical
development of the verb, and the significance
of the verb itself.2 Thus, usage is the key. Gildersleeve
maintains
that the interpretation of the
differences between active and middle are
not so much grammatical as
lexical.3 The grammatical
definition does
not determine the practical
use, the conventional use. Thus, gh?mai is
used of the man and gh<masqai of the woman.4 However, these differences
of interpretation are not due
to features inherent in the voice itself.
When analyzing usage of the
middle voice in the NT, grammarians often
center their discussions around
two phenomena. First, there is the
purported usage of the middle
voice which overlaps or is synonymous with
the active and passive voices.
Second, there are usages in which the
middle voice expresses a
distinct nuance, and these nuances are usually
treated with a taxonomical
approach.
1 GNTG 1:41;
William H. Davis, Beginner's Grammar of the Greek
New
Testament
(New York: George H. Doran Co., 1923), p. 37.
2 GLHR, p. 804.
3 Gildersleeve,
"Stahl's Syntax of the Greek Verb," p. 277.
4 Ibid., p. 277.
29
Interchangeability
Turner asserts that during the New Testament period there
was
much confusion of meaning
between the active and middle voice forms, and
the middle form was a luxury which
was dispensed with in time. New
Testament authors were rapidly
losing their grip on nice grammatical
distinctions in voice.1
An even more vague generalization reached by
Simcox is
that although perhaps the distinction is beginning to be
blurred among some of the NT
writers, it is preserved to a greater or
lesser extent in most.3 While recognizing possible overlap, Moulton
agrees with the summary of
Blass that on the whole NT writers were per-
fectly
capable of preserving the distinction between the active and the
middle.4 This more reserved conclusion is also arrived
at by Zerwick,
who notes that on careful
examination, the use of the active can usually
be accounted for.5 In view of this controversy, the specific examples
cited as support need to be
evaluated. The passages pertaining to this
controversy may be aligned
under three headings: middle for active,
active for middle, and passive
for active or middle.6
1 Nigel Turner, Grammatical
Insights into the New Testament
(Edinburgh:
T. and T. Clark, 1965), p. 112.
2 Moule,
Idiom Book, p. 24.
3 William H. Simcox, The Language of the New Testament, Reprint
ed.
(Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, 1980), p. 95.
4 GNTC 1:158;
Blass, Grammar of New Testament Greek, p. 95.
5 Zerwick,
BG, p. 73.
6 Allen C.
the
Gospel according to St. Matthew, ICC 3d ed., ed. C. A. Briggs,
et al. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1912), p. xxiii. He also
uses a fourth category of
active for passive.
30
Middle for
Active
Turner, an avid proponent of the interchangeability of
voice
forms without a difference in
meaning, declares the following bold
assertion.
While it is true that the lexicons
provide no example of the middle
voice being used in an active sense, the
New Testament abounds
(emphasis mine) in instances where a middle
voice is used when
there is an active form of the verb
available; indeed, the middle
is often used in the very sentence where
its active form occurs
with the same meaning.1
However, one certainly
hesitates to subscribe to such a dictum
without solid evidence.2 Indeed, the passages usually cited are few in
number, with James 4:2 being
given as the classic example of voice
indistinction.3
James 4:2,3
In this passage the same verb ai]te<w alternates in voice between
middle, active, and middle,
respectively. "You do not have because you
do not ask (dia> to> mh> ai]tei?sqai u[ma?j). You
ask (ai]tei?te) and
do not
receive, because you ask with
wrong motives (kakw?j ai]tei?sqe), so
that
you may spend it on your
pleasures" (Jas 4:2, 3). Numerous and varied
attempts to explain this
interchange of voice in terms of a definite
semantic difference have been
set forth.
Semantic difference
Mayor suggests that a slight additional shade of meaning
is
added by the middle voice. The
active suggests using the words without
1 Turner, Grammatical
Insights, p. 106.
2 The purported numerous
passages are not cited by the author.
3 Leddusire,
"Middle Voice," p. 127.
31
the spirit of prayer, while the
middle means asking with the spirit of
prayer.1 However, the context does not support this
suggestion. For
how can one ask with wrong
motives (kakw?j ai]tei?sqe) with
a true spirit
of prayer?2 On the other hand, to ascribe an un-prayerlike request to
the voice of ai]tei?sqe as the reason for its being kakw?j is to
ignore
dia> to> mh> ai]tei?sqai which
states that one does not have what he needs
because he does not ask in that
very verbal voice.3
Zerwick finds the difference
between middle and active to be
especially clear when the same
verb is used in the same context in both
verses.4 Thus, Mark makes a quite classical
distinction between ai]te<w
simply ask, and ai]tou?mai avail oneself of one's right to ask.
"And he
swore to her, 'whatever you ask
(ai]th<shj) of
me, I will give it to you;
up to half of my kingdom.' And she went out and said to her mother,
'What shall I ask (ai]th<somai)?'"
(Mark 6:23, 24).5 So also the
same
distinction may be in James
4:2, 3.6 Hiebert
agrees that the middle here
retains its usual middle force
of to ask for your own selves since the
purpose clause in verse three
certainly involves this personal interest
1 Joseph B. Mayor, The
Epistle of St. James, 3d ed. (
Macmillan
and Co., 1913), pp. 137-38. This suggestion is apparently
based
upon the notion that the middle combined with the verbal idea sug-
gest the notion of asking for oneself with selfish
interests.
2 D.
Faith, (Chicago: Moody Press,
1979), p. 248.
3 Leddusire,
"Middle Voice," p. 129.
4 Zerwick,
BG, p. 76.
5 However, using this
passage as a parallel to James 4:2 is only
supportive
and does not establish the distinction as always valid. For
a
different viewpoint, see William Hendriksen, Exposition
of the Gospel
according
to Mark
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 240.
6 Zerwick, BG,
p. 76.
32
element.1 Leddusire offers a
paraphrase which bears out the voice dis-
tinctions.
"You do not have because you are unaffected by asking. When
you do ask, you are without
results because your interest in asking is
undesirable, namely to squander
with your sensualities.2 Using
genera-
tive
transformational grammar, he concludes that the persistence of overt
markers in a system where the
contrasts are demonstrably productive point
to distinction. However, the
interpretation of this assertion in terms
of traditional grammar is
uncertain. For he must ultimately depend upon
context to give two different
meanings to the middle of ai]te<w, i.e.,
because you are unaffected by
asking (dia> to> mh> ai]tei?sqai u[ma?j) and
because your interest in asking
is undesireable (dio<ti kakw?j
ai]tei?sqe).
Furthermore, the validity of
the suggestion because you are unaffected
by asking is very dubious. Is
James stating that if his readers are
affected by their asking, then
their requests will be answered? How is
one to be affected by his own
asking? If this was the crucial point of
the condition, it would seem
that James would make plain the answers to
such questions. Thus, this
suggestion appears to be forced and unnatural.
Semantic indistinction
This alternation of voices in James 4:2,3 has also been
viewed
as simply an arbitrary
interchange.3 Yet, as Moulton
suggests, it is
difficult to understand how a
writer like James could permit so
purposeless a freak as this
would be.4 Perhaps on the
basis of style
1 Hiebert,
James, p. 248.
2 Leddusire,
"Middle Voice," p. 131.
3 GOEL, p. 166; Simcox, The Language of the New Testament, p. 95;
Henry
Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (
University
Press, 1912), p. 64.
4 GNTG 1:160.
Although he argues against an arbitrary inter-
change, he concludes this usage
is an extinct subtlety.
33
the middle forms were adopted
to balance the two active forms ai]tei?te
and ou] lamba<nete.1 Yet this also is a tenuous suggestion, for
such
stylistic usage of voice does
not appear elsewhere in James.2
In view of this controversy and lack of strong support
for either
position, Adamson correctly
observes that no certain distinction has
been established between the
active and middle in this passage.3
Yet
there are also no cogent
reasons which eliminate the possibility of the
middle conveying an
intensification between the subject and its verbal
action.4 This context suggests the possibility that
the intensification
may be the personal interest of
the subject in the request. Thus, this
passage is certainly not
irrefutable evidence that the active and middle
voices of certain verbs are
used interchangeably, nor vice versa.5
1 John 5:14, 15
Parallel in difficulty are the five occurrences of ai]te<w in
1 John.6 Within two verses there is a variation of
middle, middle, and
1 James B. Adamson, The
Epistle of James, NICNT, ed. F. F. Bruce
(Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), p.
169.
2 An examination of the
flow of verbs according to voice in James
has
not revealed another sequence of middle-active-middle-active or any
similar
combination.
3 Adamson, James,
p. 169.
4 For opposing view, see TDNT,
s.v. “ai]te<w,” by Gustov Stahlin,
1:192.
Although he states that there is no option but to explain this
voice
variation in James in terms of the formal structure of the sen-
tence, his arguments are really only applicable to
Mayor's suggestion.
5 Turner, Grammatical
Insights, p. 164. Hence his assertive
conclusions
for interchangeability need to be more balanced. Even
BAGD,
p. 25, concludes that the middle and active only seem to be used
interchangeably.
6 1 Jn
3:22, 5:14, 15, 16. Also the twelve occurrences of ai]te<w
in
the Gospel of John display voice variation and present difficulties
of interpretation.
34
active. "And this is the
confidence which we have before Him, that, if
we ask (ai]tw<meqa)
anything according to his will He hears us. And if we
know that He hears us in
whatever we ask (ai]tw<meqa), we
know that we have
the requests which we have
asked (^]th<kamen) from Him" (1 John 5:14, 15).
Certainly in this passage the
qualifying phrase kata> to> qe<lhma does not
seem to permit any
self-interest to be involved. On the basis of the
usage of ai]te<w in contexts of business dealings where the
middle may add
the nuance that one has the
right to ask, it is suggested that this
difference in meaning is
apparent and certainly seems to be intended.
Why should the two middle forms that
are used here not include
this right? Does the phrase 'according to
his will" (qe<lhma,
what
God has willed and has made known as being
willed by him) not imply
a certain right for our asking?1
However, the context does not support this nuance. The requi-
sitioning in prayer
is the same in both ai]tw<meqa and ^]th<kamen
without
adverbal
modifiers as in James 4:2, 3. Although perceiving no difference
in meaning, two suggestions
attempt to account for the variation in form
in this passage. First, the
cognate accusative ai]tei?n ai]th<mata in the
active voice is understood as a
periphrasis for the middle ai]tei?sqai.2
Second, it is suggested that in
Johannine usage the active is used with
the accusative.3 These notions, however, appear to be
inadequate,
1 R. C. U. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St.
Peter,
1966),
p. 533.
2 David Smith, "The
Epistles of John," in vol. 5 of Expositor's
Greek
Testament,
ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, (
Publishing
Co., 1979), p. 197. He does note a difference of meaning in
James
4:3.
3 Robert Law, The
Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of
Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1968), p. 406. An exception is John 11:22.
Also
the usage of the active of ai]te<w in James does not follow this pat-
tern,
although the difference may be accounted for simply on the basis
of different authorship.
35
for they confuse the notion of
transitiveness with that of voice.
Therefore, in this passage neither a difference of meaning
between active and middle is
discernible, nor does the difference
appear to be satisfactorily
explained in teams of transitiveness.
While there may be a semantic
distinction of voice regarding ai]te<w
in James, none is discernible
in 1 John. Thus, one should be wary
of broad generalizations regarding
voice distinctions, even with a
specific verb, apart from an
examination of each individual context.1
Parallel Synoptic Passages
Striking evidence for the notion of interchangeability of
middle and active without
semantic difference may be derived from
parallel synoptic accounts.
Whereas one author uses the middle voice,
another author employs the
active voice in the same verb while describ-
ing the
same event.
Matthew 26:23; Mark 14:20
The particular detail with voice variation is in the
significant
description by Jesus of the
traitor.2 Mark uses the
middle voice and
Matthew uses the active.
"He who dips (o[ e]mbapo<menoj) with
me into the
dish" (Mark 14:20).
"He who dips (o[ e]mba<yaj) his
hand in the dish with
me" (Matt, 26:23). Yet not
only does the voice vary, but also the tenses
1 For example, see DNTT,
s.v. "Prayer," by H. Schonweiss,
2:856.
2 This specific detail is
omitted in the Lukan and Johannine
accounts.
Furthermore, e]mba<ptw
does not occur elsewhere in the NT or
LXX, apart from the textual
variant at John 13:26.
36
are present and aorist,
respectively. Any intended difference of
meaning by either writer in his
use of tense is not readily discernible.1
However, a lexical citation of
these passages gives dip for the active
and dip for oneself as
the middle.2 This additional nuance in the middle
is in accord with Gould's
suggestion that Mark does not mean to indicate
the traitor, but only to
emphasize the treachery of the act.3 But this
emphasis may be understood
apart from any contribution of voice.
Matthew 19:20; Mark 10:20; Luke
18:18
The rich young ruler's response to Jesus concerning the
command-
ments involves
the use of fula<ssw.
Whereas Matthew and Luke both use
the aorist active e]fu<laca, Mark
uses the aorist middle. "Teacher, I
have kept (e]fula<camhn) all
these things from my youth" (Mark 10:20).
Leddusire,
finding a semantic difference, attempts to explain this in
terms of a dative middle model
which has the inference of an affected
subject. He attempts to gather
further contextual support from the
young ruler's questioning of
Christ.
The exegetical distinction is also
supported in the context, which
follows the original question in Mark
10:17, "What (else) must I
do?" On the other hand, the active
sentence of Matthew is in
1 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel
(Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), p. 616. He views both
the
aorist and present as timeless tenses with any intended difference
of
meaning as unlikely.
2 BAGD, p. 254.
However, no difference is stated in LSJ, p. 539.
The
shift of tense from the present of o[ e]mbapto<menoj to the aorist
o[ e]mba<yaj
cannot be accounted for by deponency. The verb e]mba<ptw is not
a
middle deponent form for the present but an active form for the aorist.
3 Ezra P. Gould, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Gospel
according to St. Mark,
ICC ed. C. A. Briggs, et al. (
Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1896), p. 262. His suggestion is not based on
simply the voice difference.
37
answer to the question in Matt 19:16,
"what is a good action I can
perform?" and can be paraphrased as
"why, I've already done that."1
Yet the following three questions posed by the young man
and
directed to Christ have little,
if any, difference.
1. "Teacher, what good
thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life"
(Matt 19:16)
2. "Good teacher, what
shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Mark 10:17)
3. "Good teacher, what
shall I do to obtain eternal life?" (Luke 18:18)
In fact, the only difference between the question in Mark
and
Luke is the use of e@xw rather
than klhronome<w in the i!na clause. Thus,
the cause of Mark's use of the
middle e]fula<camhn is not to be found in
this question. Nor is the
suggestion that Matthew and Luke independently
corrected Mark's use of e]fula<camhn
particularly cogent.2 Brown cau-
tiously
concludes that, while the middle may have the same force as the
active, it may also mean guard
for oneself, store, or be careful.3
If
Mark intends to clarify that
the young ruler has emphasized his guarding
of the commandments in relation
to himself, it is extremely difficult to
detect this from contextual
clues. The contexts, including specific
details, are nearly identical
by each author.
Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47
These two writers, while reporting a specific detail of a
single
event, selected different
voices for its transmission. When describing
1 Leddusire,
"Middle Voice," pp. 136-38.
2 Vincent Taylor, The
Gospel according to St. Mark, 2d ed.
(London:
Macmillan and Co., 1966), p. 428. He not only assumes the
primacy
of a Marcion source, but also assumes misuse of the
middle by
Mark.
However, if the middle is interchangeable with the active, it is
simply
disused, not used incorrectly (Simcox, Language of
the New
Testament, p. 96).
3 DNTT, s.v.
"Guard," by C. Brown, 2:134.
38
the drawing of the short sword
from its scabbard, Matthew uses
a]pe<spasen, but
Mark employs spasa<menoj.
Again, it is Mark who consis-
tently uses
the middle form when there is a voice form difference.1
Matthew's use of the prefix a]po> with
the verb does not add any additional
significance to spa<w.2
Summary
From these synoptic passages, several factors emerge.
First,
various verbal features may
vary without any semantic significance.3
These include the choice of a
particular verb, the selection of a speci-
fic tense
of the same verb, the selection of a specific voice of the
same verb, and the addition of
a prefix to the verb. Mark has been the
only author known who
consistently uses the middle when parallel synoptic
accounts have the active. Thus,
it appears that Mark may simply have a
stylistic preference for the middle
without an intended difference of
meaning, compared to the
active, for no intended difference is
discernible.4
Paired Sentences
Additional support for the theory of voice
interchangeability
has been gathered from
sentences which, although contextually disparate,
1 Although Luke does not
include this detail, John includes it
with
the usage of a different but synonymous verb e!lkw.
2 BAGD, pp. 98,
761.
3 For other conspicuous
grammatical differences without apparent
semantic
significance, see Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on
the
Gospel according to St. Matthew, 3d ed. (London: Robert
Scott, 1911),
p.
xiii.
4 For a different
conclusion, see Leddusire, "Middle Voice,"
p.
135.
While recognizing Matthew's stylistic preference for the active
as undisputed, he views this
fact as irrelevant to the theory of voice.
39
use the same verb. A verb in fts active voice form is paired with an
occurrence of its middle form
in a different context.1
Using eu[ri<skw
The perfect active infinitive eu[rh<kenai is
cited as having no
semantic difference as compared
to the aorist middle participle
eu[ra<menoj (Rom
4:1, Heb 9:12).2 However,
this assertion is wholly
arbitrary and subjective.
Appropriate criteria for the establishment of
voice interchange, i.e.,
parallelisms, contextual similarity or identity,
and stylistic preferences, are
lacking.3 The middle voice of
eu[ra<menoj
can be clearly distinguished
from the active.4
Using u[stere<w
In a similar vein, the active of u[stere<w in
Hebrews 4:1, 12:15
is viewed as possessing exactly
the same significance as the middle in
Romans 3:32.5 Again, the same objections regarding eu[ri<skw are appli-
cable to this methodology. No
evidence is cited by either Winer or
Simcox to
support their assertions.
1 These same. verbs are
also acknowledged by others to have
semantic
difference according to voice form. For example, note the
lexical
listings of fai<nw
in BAGD, pp. 851-2.
2 Simcox,
Language of the New Testament, p. 96.
3 This problem is further
compounded by the fact that non-finite
forms,
especially infinitives, do not always reflect the force of the
voice.
Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek 1:63; Leddusire, "Middle
Voice,"
p. 42.
4 Brooke F. Wescott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (
millan Co., n.d.; reprint
ed.
5 Simcox,
Language of the New Testament, p. 95; Winer, A
Grammar
of
the Idiom of the New Testament, p. 260. Winer more
generally con-
cludes that the middle and the active of this verb are
always synonymous
in NT.
40
Using Additional Verbs
Although they are cited without specific passage
indicators,
the following verbs have been
purported as having interchangeable voice
forms without semantic
distinction: la<mpw; o[ra<w; se<bw; and fai<nw.1
Summary
From these passages and specific verbs, it appears that
the
assumption of voice
interchangeability has a very weak foundation. Sup-
portive
passages are tenuous and infrequent. It is possible, although
not probable, that in each of
the cited passages the middle voice conveys
in some degree or manner an
intensification of the relationship between
the subject and the verbal
action. However, the voice interchange in
parallel synoptic passages
renders this as improbable. Yet each specific
passage must be examined in
light of its own contextual factors, and
broad generalizations promoting
interchangeability should be avoided.
For while the middle and active
of ai]te<w appear
to be semantically dis-
tinct in
James 4:2, 3, this is not the case in 1 John 5:14, 15.
Active
for Middle
The assumption that the active is used for the middle as
sup-
portive of
interchangeability rests on several slightly different
foundations.
Based on Similarity of Meaning
Concerning classical usage, Smyth observes that the
active is
often used for the middle when
it is not of practical importance to
1 Thompson, A Syntax
of Attic Greek, p. 160; James T. Allen, The
First
Year of Greek
(New York: Macmillan Co., 1932), p. 310; Winer,
A
Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, pp. 256-57. As in the
previous examples, no solid
evidence is cited.
41
mark the interest of the
subject in the action. The active implies what
the middle expresses.1 Regarding Attic usage in particular, it is
noted
that the active is used like
the middle.2 Inarguably, a
significant
difference of meaning between
the active and middle forms of the verbs
cited in their examples is not
evident.3 However, similarity
in meaning
does not necessarily establish
identity of usage in general. As Turner
observes, the verbal idea
inherent in certain verbs is not significantly
expressed as a difference in
either active or middle.
For practical purposes, it mattered
very little whether the
active or middle voice was used with verbs
of a certain type. "I
make a request" is active, but is not
profoundly different from the
middle, "I make a request for
myself." It defines the idea more
narrowly (emphasis mine), but in
normal conversation, either active
or middle would do.4
But even as Turner recognizes, this does not mean that no
subtle
nuance may be intended. Thus,
rather than assuming that the active is
used for the middle, it seems
better to view this phenomenon as a
result of the verbal idea.
Certain verbal ideas do not have a signifi-
cant semantic shift in active
to middle, but subtle nuances may be
detected.
Based on Classical Precedent
Some verbs are thought to appear in the active where the
middle
would be expected in classical
Greek.5 The most notable example is
poie<w with a
verbal noun. In classical Greek, there are numerous
1 Smyth, Greek Grammar,
p. 393.
2 Thompson, Syntax of
Attic Greek, p. 167.
3 metape<mpw, dhlo<w, dida<skw, metaxeiri<zw, bia<zw,
pare<xw,
o[mologe<w.
4 Turner, Grammatical
Insights, p. 163.
5 GNTG, 3:56.
42
differences between poiei?n and poiei?sqai with
verbal nouns in which the
active gives the literal side
"to fashion," "to bring about," whereas
the middle serves to form a
periphrasis with the verbal noun for the
corresponding verb.1 This periphrasis, composed of poiei?n in the
middle
voice plus a noun denoting
action as an object, is equivalent to a
simple verb.2 However, lo<gon poiei?sqai (to
make a speech) may correspond
to legei?n, but it is not the same as lo<gon poiei?n (to
compose a speech).
Similarly, o[do>n poiei?sqai (to
make one's way) may correspond to o[deuei?n,
but this is not the same as o[do>n poiei?n (to
construct a road). Thus,
using this criterion, the
middle would be expected in Mark 2:23, but in
fact the active occurs.
"And his disciples began to make their way
(o[do>n
poiei?n) while plucking the heads of
grain" (Mark 2:23). Yet, this
assumption that the classical
distinction is lost may be challcnged.3
A possible explanation is that
the disciples began to make a way, i.e.,
to open a path, by plucking the
ears of corn.4 But this
cannot be
maintained as an inviolable
rule, for the LXX clearly uses o[do>n poiei?n
1 Gildersleeve,
Syntax of Classical Greek, p. 69; Smyth, Greek
Grammar, p. 391.
2 BG, pp. 72-73.
Examples cited as evidence include porei<an
poiei?sqai for poreu<esqai, mnei?an poiei?sqai for memnh?sqai. Also see
James
L. Boyer, "Notes on 2 Peter and Jude" (Winona Lake, IN, 1977),
p.
10. Perhaps the middle sense of bebai<an
poiei?sqai< should not be
pressed,
since Greek idiom in classical Greek required the middle. In
the
NT both active and middle forms of poiei?n are used in this peri-
phrastic construction.
3 Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospels
of Mark and Luke,
vol. 2 trans. Robert E. Wallis in Meyer's
Commentary
on the New Testament,
rev. and ed. William P. Dickson
(
1979),
p. 33; Alexander B. Bruce, "The Synoptic Gospels," in vol. 1 of
Expositor's
Greek Testament,
ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (
B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co_, 1979), pp. 354-55.
4 Meyer, Critical and
Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospels of
Mark and Luke, p.
33.
43
in the sense of to make
one's way, to journey. "Then the man departed
from the city, from Bethlehem
of Judah, to dwell wherever he might find
a place, and he came to the
hill district of Ephraim to the house of
Micah as he made his journey
(tou? poih?sai th>n
o[do>n au]tou?)" (Judg
17:8).1
Thus, the criterion of a
classical precedent may be used to establish
either view, and it is a
tenuous standard for the determination of voice
interchange without semantic
distinction. Even if o[do>n poiei?n means to
make one's way in Mark 2:23,
this only demonstrates a difference of
classical and koine usage. It does not establish the notion of inter-
changeability in the NT.
Based on Different Construction
In the NT, a verb in the active voice with a reflexive
pronoun
is numerically predominant over
the direct reflexive usage of the middle
voice.2 These two different constructions have been
equated in terms of
semantic significance in the
NT.3 In Luke 16:9, e[autoi?j poih<sate might
have been fully expressed by
one word, poih<sasqe.4 Similarly, the dif-
ference
between prose<xete
e[autoi?j and fula<ssesqe is viewed as minimal
in Luke 12:1, 15.5 Yet, Robertson's conclusion that the use of
the
1 Alfred Rahlfs, ed. Septuginta,
vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Wurttem-
bergische Bibelanstalt,
1935), p. 476.
2 Alfred S. Geden and William E. Moulton, eds. A Concordance to
the
Greek Testament,
5th ed. rev. Harold K. Moulton (Edimburgh: T. and
T.
Clark, 1978), pp. 240-44.
3 BGHG, 2:398.
4 Samuel Green, Handbook
to the Grammar of the Greek New Testa-
ment (New.
numerical
dominance of active voice with reflexive pronoun in koine
seems
to indicate a loss of the directly reflexive sense in most cases.
5 GNTG 1:157.
Perhaps the reflexive construction is slightly
more emphatic.
44
reflexive pronoun with the
active bears more sharply the reflexive
relation than the mere middle
has more justification.1 For
as early as
Homer, the reflexive forms are
occasionally used with the middle to more
clearly bring out the reflexive
notion.2 Regardless of how
closely the
two constructions are
identified in meaning this does not establish the
notion of interchangeability.
For the active voice per se is not equated
with the middle, but rather the
active with reflexive pronoun.
Summary
Therefore, in summary, the assumption of active for
middle
usually stands without warrant.
Certain verbal ideas may be signifi-
cantly
different in their active as compared to middle voices, but this
is due to the nature of the
verbal idea. Also the appeal to classical
usage is a two-pronged argument
that may validate either position.
However, even if the active is
used where a middle might appear more
appropriate in classical usage,
the only fact established is that of a
difference between koine and classical. The notion of interchangeability
in the NT has not been supported.
Finally, a difference of construction
with identical or very similar
meaning also fails to support voice
interchange. Jannaris' conclusion that the use of the active instead of
the middle occurs times
without number is unwarranted.3
Passive as
Middle
The aorist passive of some active verbs may have a
reflexive or
middle sense.4 Whereas fai<nw means
show, e]fa<nhn showed
myself,
1 GLHR, p. 802.
Also, see BG, p. 75.
2 Gildersleeve,
Greek Syntax, p. 68. In the NT, note Acts 7:21,
20:24,
1 Tim 3:13; Titus 2:7. However, this phenomenon usually occurs
with
deponents.
3 HGG, p. 364. His
numerous NT illustrations usually involve poie<w.
4 Smyth, Greek Grammar,
p. 222. He identifies these verbs as
middle passives.
45
appeared. The same type of
semantic shift is true of eu]frai<nw,
kine<w,
and xai<rw. However, this phenomenon appears to be
adequately accounted
for by the historical
development of the qhn
aorist. The passive idea
was not always the original
sense, and hence, in NT times, the passive
idea is not perceptible in
these verbs.1 This does not support voice
interchange in the sense that
the middle and passive voices are used
interchangeably. Instead, these
passives are simply used with a mild
reflexive sense. The middle and
passive of the same verb do not occur
in parallel passages with
semantic identity.
Divisions
In this section, except for deponents, fall the usages of
the
middle voice which do not
overlap in meaning with the active and passive
voices. In order to analyze the
various usages, it is a matter of
convenience to refer to the
divisions of the middle voice constructed
by grammarians. However, these
divisions appear, as Robertson main-
tains, more
or less arbitrary and unsatisfactory.2 Almost every
grammarian differs to a certain
extent in his terminology and categori-
zation, for
the Greeks themselves did not need or possess such divisions.
Grammarians have listed as few
as two to as many as nine categories.3
Furthermore, Green calls the
reflexive usage direct or indirect, whereas
1 GNTG 1:161.
2 GLHR, p. 806.
Also, see MGNT, p. 158.
3 HGG, pp. 360-61.
He places all usages in either a directly
reflexive
or an indirectly reflexive category. For nine categories,
see
William W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar, rev. Charles B. Gulick
(
Ginn and
Co., 1930).
46
Brooks and Winbery
classify the same phenomenon as dynamic or
intensive.1 However, this is not an indictment against
grammarians,
for the categories are erected
for analytic and didactic purposes. Even
Dana and Mantey,
who employ a taxonomic approach, offer the following
warning.
An analysis of the uses of the middle
is of necessity more or
less arbitrary. No rigid lines of
distinction can in reality be
drawn. Distinctions there are, however, and
the following analysis
is proposed as indicating the main lines
of difference.2
Furthermore, when recognizing distinct nuances of usage
of the
middle voice, it is helpful to
employ a distinctive term to describe the
particular phenomenon of
language. However, by, no means does this mean
that these categories are an
essential feature of the fundamental signi-
ficance of the
middle voice. The middle voice per se only relates an
intensification of the
relationship between the subject and the action
expressed by the verb. The
degree or manner of intensification may be
mild or acute, and the determination
of the intensification is in terms
of a particular context and the
meaning of a verb.3 Thus, these cate-
gories are of
usage and not of features inherent in the middle voice
alone.
Since the categories are defined differently by
grammarians, a
somewhat arbitrary selection of
the terminology and categorization of
one author will be consistently
employed in order to avoid confusion.
As Robertson's six categories
are generally defined and thoroughly
1 Green, Handbook to
the Grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 292.
This
taxonomical confusion repeatedly occurs among grammarians.
2 NGNT, p. 158.
3 Ibid., p. 158.
47
illustrated, they will
conveniently serve as the basis for an analysis
of usage.1
Direct
Middle
In the directly reflexive usage, the intensification of
the
subject to verbal action is
such that the action is directly upon or to
the subject. Although Jay
denies this category, and Moulton only accepts
one possible example in a]ph<cato,
Robertson offers over twenty illustra-
tions.2 However, over one-half of these examples may
also be identified
as passive and are
questionable.3 Thus, although a directly reflexive
sense does occur in the NT, the
number of occurrences is extremely
small.4
Causative or
Permissive Middle
The labeling of the middle voice as causative appears to
be
unwarranted.5 The
active voice is also designated as causative, but as
both Robertson and Jannaris observe, this feature is not due to the
voice.6 In addition, this feature is common to all
languages.7 If
transitiveness is to be
properly separated from the notion of voice,
1 GLHR, p. 106.
Even Robertson follows these divisions merely
for
convenience.
2 Ibid., pp. 806-08.
3 For example, note the
verbs pota<ssesqe, dogmati<zesqe,
and
a]narau<esqe.
4
MGNT, p. 158.
5 Although Robertson does
not explicitly define the term
causative,
his citation of Gildersleeve gives the impression
that he is
following
Gildersleeve's definition.
6 GLHR, p. 801.
7 HGG, p. 359.
48
then so also is causation.1
Neither is the permissive label particularly lucid. The
per-
missive sense of the middle is
considered as closely allied to the
causative and approaches the
passive.2 This permissive
middle has been
more clearly defined as
representing the agent as voluntarily yielding
himself to the results of the
action, or seeking to secure the results
of the action, or seeking to
secure the results of the action in his own
interest.3 Simply stated, the action takes place by
order or with per-
mission of the subject.4 Thus, the intensification of the relationship
between subject and verbal
action is such that the subject permits or
allows the action. Again, it
should be noted that this is derived from
the context and the root idea
of the verb. Dani<sasqai and misqw<sasqai
appear to be valid examples of
this usage (Matt 5:42; Matt 20:1).5
Indirect
In this usage the subject is represented as doing
something for
or by himself. This indirect
usage is quite varied and abundant in the
NT. Often the subject is merely
highlighted as the doer of the action.
This, along with the dynamic
category, is very vague, and perhaps the
two should be combined. For
even Robertson finally concludes concerning
this category that each word
and its context must determine the result.6
1 Thompson, Syntax of
Attic Greek, p. 162. Also see GLHR, p. 809.
The
causative idea in a]nakefalaiw<sasqai ta> panta>
e]n t&? Xrist&? is not
due
to the voice, but to the verb itself (Eph 1:10).
2 GLHR, p. 809.
3 MGNT, p. 160.
4 Winer,
A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, p. 254.
5 GLHR, p. 809.
6 Ibid., p. 809.
49
In fact, the exact relation of
the indirectly reflexive usage must be
perpetually varied if the sense
of the middle is to be appropriate to
the particular example.1
Reciprocal
An interchange of effort between the members of a plural
subject
may be expressed by the middle
voice.2 This usage appears to be semanti-
cally
equivalent to the active voice with a reciprocal pronoun.3 The LXX
quotation of diemeri<santo e[autoi?j from
Psalm 21:19 is given as
diemeri<santo e[autoij in John 19:24, but is only stated as diemeri<santo
without the reciprocal pronoun
in Matthew 27:35. Therefore, in Matthew the
middle appears to be clearly
used in either a reciprocal or distributive sense.
Redundant
In this usage both the pronoun and the middle occur.4 This
redundance also
exists in classical Greek, and it may represent more
clearly the reflexive force in
some cases.5 Overlap within
these cate-
gories is
apparent, for diemeri<santo e[autoi?j,
although being reciprocal,
also falls within this class
(John 19:24).
Dynamic or
Deponent
Whereas certain grammarians have a separate category for
dynamic
and for deponent, Robertson
combines them.6 Gildersleeve's remark that
1 GNTG, 1:157.
2 MGNT, p. 160.
3 GLHR, p. 810.
4 Ibid., p. 811.
5 Gildersleeve,
Syntax of Classical Greek, 1:68.
6 GLHR, p. 811.
Also see Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p.
161.
50
this is the drip-pan or pande<kthj middle
that is put at the bottom to
catch the drippings of the
other uses clearly demonstrates the diffi-
culty of
applying a label to every usage of the middle.1
However, it is important to recognize the phenomenon
usually
described by the term deponent.
Deponent verbs have been defined as
verbs which have no active
forms, but only middle or passive forms with
active meaning.2 However, this definition is
inadequate for advanced
students because certain verbs,
especially in the future tense, have
both an active and a middle
form with the middle voice form performing
an active voice function. Both a]kou<sw and a]kou<somai are
found in the
NT, with a]kou<somai having
an active voice function (Matt 12:19; Acts
3:22).3 Rather than a facet of voice interchange,
this phenomenon is
closely parallel to verbs which
are deponent only in the future. Thus
the distinctive feature of a
deponent is that its voice form is
different from its voice
function.4 The active voice
form may also
occur when a middle form is
deponent, although this is usually not the
case.5
Identification
The identification of a deponent middle form is not
simply
limited to a lexicon. Whereas
Thayer, Abbott-Smith and LSJ have an
1 Gildersleeve,
"Stahl's Syntax of the Greek Verb," p. 277.
2 J.
Macmillan
Co., 1951), p. 61.
3 GNTG 1:154
4 MGNT, p. 163.
5 For additional verbs exhibiting this
feature, see GNTG 1:154-55.
51
active form for proxeiri<zw, LPGL
and Sophocles have a deponent lexical
listing.1 BAGD lists it as active but observes that it
is only middle
deponent in the included
literature.2 The extent of the literature sur-
veyed is a
contributing factor in identifying a deponent middle. However,
usage in the particular
contextual environment is the key indication.3
Summary
Two areas of usage of the middle voice have been
investigated.
First, regarding the phenomenon
of voice interchange without semantic
difference, there is scant
supportive evidence in the NT. An investi-
gation of
parallel synoptic passages as well as key individual texts
does reveal voice interchange
without semantic distinction as occurring.
However, rather than being a
general rule, this phenomenon must be
determined per individual
context.
Regarding the divisions of usage, they are not derived
from any
inherent feature of the middle
voice per se. Contextual factors com-
bined with
the verbal idea are the foundation upon which these divisions
have been erected. Naturally,
therefore, they vary from grammarian to
grammarian and are somewhat
arbitrary. Yet, it is important to recognize
the category of deponent, i.e.,
one whose distinctive feature is an
1 Joseph H. Thayer, Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament
(Grand
Rapids: Zondervon Publishing House, 1975), p. 554;
Georg Abbott-
Smith,
A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (
Scribner's
Sons, 1922), p. 391; LSJ, p. 1541; Evangelinus A.
Sophocles,
Greek
Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, vol. 2 (
2 BAGD, p. 724.
Also see lumai<nw, parrhsia<zw, e]pilamba<nw,
e]pektei<nw, strateu<w in the various
lexicons.
3 Concerning the
problematic identification of pau<somntai as a pos-
sible deponent in 1 Cor
13:8, see Charles Smith, Tongues in Biblical
Perspective
(Winona Lake: BMH Books, 1972), pp. 83-84.
52
active meaning with a middle
form. Since for certain verbs the issue of
deponency is not
clear, further lexicography needs to be performed.
CHAPTER IV
TRANSLATION
AND INTERPRETATION
Before suggesting general guidelines, it is appropriate
to
submit warnings that should
remove artificial prescriptive rules.
Warnings
Over
translation
Not a single grammarian has been encountered who
advocates the
translation of every middle.
Instead, they have appropriately warned
against overtranslating
the middle voice by attempting to express every
single shade of meaning by an
English word or phrase.1 The variation of
the middle form may be too
minute for translational discrimination.2
Stahl's attempts to translate
the middle are cogently corrected by
Gildersleeve.
We translate i]dei?n to see and i]de<sqai to see with one's own
eyes;
an overtranslation as o]fqalmoi<sin o[ra?n shows, but if there is
such
virtue in i]de<sqai,
why not in i]doma<noj? Ah! the verse. Like
the
rest of us, Stahl has to go into bankruptcy. Translation will
not suffice.3
Similarly, Smyth submits that the force of the middle in
a]kou<esqai, ti<masqai, a]riqmei?sqai, and a]porei?sqai cannot
be reproduced
in translation. In some cases,
it may not have even been felt.
1
2 GLHR, p. 804.
3 Gildersleeve,
"Stahl's Syntax of the Greek Verb," p. 278.
53
54
Rigid
Rules
Against the definitive, exhaustive approach of erecting
rigid
rules in any language stands
the timely warning of Meyer-Myklestad.
Within the limits imposed by the
syntactic possibilities of a
language, the speaker is a free agent:
grammar cannot compel him to
think this way or that. The sentence is
instructive in that it shows
the impossibility of prescriptive rules in
grammar.1
Hence, it reasonably follows that no fixed rigid rule can
be
maintained for the translation
of a particular use of the middle voice.2
If the categories of usage
themselves overlap and are somewhat arbitrary
and indistinct, how can a fixed
rule be erected for that category?
Instead, each particular
occurrence must be analyzed separately.
Unwarranted Dogmatism
In view of the difficulty involved in interpreting and
trans-
lating many
occurrences of the middle voice, it appears sound to conclude
with Moule
that as a rule it is far from easy to come down from the
fence with much decisiveness on
either side in an exegetical problem if
it depends on voice.3 The assertion that the middle voice of pau<sontai
demonstrates that tongues are
no longer extant today is highly
gratuitous (1 Cor 13:8).4
It is possible to reach a valid conclusion
based on partially erroneous
exegetical reasoning since that conclusion
1 Johannes Meyer-Myklestad, An Advanced English Grammar for
Students
and Teachers
(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1969), p.
2 GLHR, p. 810.
3 Moule,
An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, p. 24. However,
for
four arguments against this conclusion, see Leddusire,
"Middle
Voice,"
p. 135. Since his presupposition that generative transforma-
tional grammar is the only adequate framework for
voice study problems
has
been questioned, his conclusions are unconvincing.
4 Again, for cogent
argumentation, see Smith, Tongues in Biblical
Perspective, pp.
83-84.
55
may be demonstrably valid via
other argumentation. But this does not
condone improper methodology
and unwarranted dogmatism that will
normally yield unsupportable
results.
Authorial and Geographical
Variations
Moulton's conclusion that usage inevitably varied in
different
localities and between
different authors appears sound.1
From the
parallel synoptic passages, it
has been suggested that Mark's use of the
middle compared to the active
in other passages may simply be a
stylistic feature. Furthermore,
the voice interchange in James 4:2, 3
may be explained as the
writer's stylistic variation adopted to balance
the two active forms.2 Perhaps also the usage of the middle would
vary
with the writer's Greek
culture.3
Insistence on Classical
Greek Distinctions
It appears hazardous to agree with the conclusion that
the
system of voices in general
remained the same in the Hellenstic period,
including the NT, as in the
classical period of the language.4 To the
other extreme, Turner concludes
that NT writers are not happy in their
understanding of the middle
voice according to classical standards.5
One of the principal
characteristics of NT Greek in general is the
1 GNTG 1:159.
2 Adamson, James,
p. 169. However, that is not the position
adopted
in this paper.
3 GNTG 1:159.
4 GOECL, p. 161.
5 Turner, Grammatical Insights, pp. 106-7.
56
absence of classical Greek
standards.1 Although a middle form of a verb
may have had a distinctive
sense in classical Greek, this meaning should
not be automatically carried
over into the NT.2
Guidelines
Only two basic guidelines emerge from this study that
appear to
be helpful.
For Translation
Each particular occurrence of the middle voice must be
weighed
in terms of the historical
development of the verb, primacy of context
and the idea itself. These
factors determine not only if there is any
intensification between the
subject and the action expressed by the
verb, but also the degree and
manner of intensification. Although one
may not always be able to
clearly express the middle voice by an English
translation, one can seek to
acclimate oneself to its mental atmosphere
and feel its force by repeated
exposure in different contexts with
different verbs.3 Moulton's suggestion that "He pardoneth" could be
used to represent a]fi<etai,
whereas "He pardoneth" expresses a]fi<hsi,
would be valid only if the particular
context indicated that this was
the emphasis. The same is true
for Dana and Mantey's suggestion for the
use of italics.4
1 DNTT, s.v. "Presuppositions and Theology in the Greek New Tes-
tament," by Murray J. Harris, 3:1171-1215. Many
of his observations do
not
simply regard prepositions but the language as a whole.
2 Observe poiei?n o[do>n in the discussion of
Mark 2:23 by Bruce,
"The
Synoptic Gospels," pp. 354-55.
3 MGNT, p. 157. In
addition, general guidelines and an elementary
procedure
for translating Greek into English are offered by Gideon and
4 MGNT, p. 159.
The Greeks employed the middle where we must
resort
to italics.
57
For
Interpretation
As it is difficult, if not impossible, to translate
without
interpretation, the preceding
suggestions are applicable here. In addi-
tion, Blass'
conclusion that on the whole the NT writers were perfectly
capable of preserving the
distinction between the active and the middle
appears to be sound.1 Thus, although there is some usage which may
be
synonymous in meaning among the
voices, voice interchange is an infre-
quent
phenomenon. The probable exegetical significance of a true middle
as dictated per context should
not be overlooked.
1
Blass, Grammar of New Testament Greek, p. 186.
CONCLUSION
The grammatical category of voice is the relationship
between
the subject of a sentence and
the action expressed by the verb. For the
sake of clarity and
consistency, it is advantageous to define the three
Greek voices in terms of this
relationship. The notion of general
reflexivity, although an
apparent feature of the middle voice, does not
elucidate the nature of this
relationship. General reflexivity is vague
and imprecise, and does not
considerably aid one's comprehension. In
addition, the concepts of middle
signification and transitiveness are
either inadequate or irrelevant
regarding voice meaning. Although the
concepts of special advantage
and subject participation in the results
may be involved at times, these
ideas are not inherent to voice itself.
Historical argumentation and
usage remove the idea that the middle voice
is middle in meaning between
active and passive. Instead, a basic notion
of the middle voice as an
intensification in some manner or degree of
the relationship between the
subject and the action expressed by the
verb serves as a valid
guideline. The precise nature of this intensifi-
cation
between subject and verbal action is not indicated by the middle
voice per se. The nature
of the intensification must be derived from
the context, the historical
evolution of the verb, and the verbal idea
itself. Thus, even though this
basic concept regarding the middle voice
occurs in the majority of NT
true middles, it may be absent or modified
as indicated by these factors.
Concerning the controversy regarding voice interchange
without
58
59
semantic distinction, the
phenomenon does appear to exist but in a very
limited number of cases. An
investigation of parallel synoptic passages
and key texts with voice
interchange reveals that no apparent distinction
is intended in certain cases.
However, no general rule of thumb is
available regarding this voice
variation. For in one passage an inten-
ded
semantic shift can be detected, but in another passage no semantic
distinction is apparent.
Regarding the divisions of the middle voice, they are not
derived from the middle voice per se. Contextual factors and the verbal
idea are the foundation upon
which these categories have been erected.
The divisions are not rigid and
definitive, but are somewhat arbitrary
and overlap. The division of deponency is the most important category
which includes middle voice
forms with an active function. The identi-
fication of a
deponent is not simply via lexicons, but in certain
questionable cases further
lexicography is needed.
Several warnings regarding translation and interpretation
have
emerged from this study. The
middle voices cannot always be expressed
by means of translation.
Certain verbal ideas per se do not suggest
that this is possible, and
apparently the Greeks did not always intend a
major difference. At times the
variation of the middle from the active
is so minute it is difficult to
know if one has properly recognized an
intended distinction. In view
of this, it is difficult to be decisive
in an exegetical problem if it
depends on voice.
Also an author may use a specific voice as a stylistic
feature,
but this is not a general rule.
However, it does warn against
establishing principles without
considering possible authorial tendency
or preference.
60
Finally, classical Greek distinctions per se
should not be used
to determine NT usage. Examples
contrary to classical usage do appear.
A distinctive classical meaning
for a middle voice should not be
automatically carried over into
the NT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott,
Edwin. Johannine Grammar.
1906.
Abbott-Smith,
George. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament.
Adamson,
James B. The Epistle of James. NICNT. Edited by F. F. Bruce.
Alford,
Henry. Alford's Greek Testament, an Exegetical and Critical
Commentary. vol. 4.
Allen,
James T. The First Year of Greek.
1932.
Allen,
According to St. Matthew.
ICC. 3d ed. Edited by C. A. Briggs,
et al.
Anthon,
Charles. A Grammar of the Greek Language.
and Bros., 1855.
Argyle,
Aubrey W. An Introductory Grammar of New Testament Greek.
Atkinson,
Basil F. C. The Greek Language.
1931.
Bauer,
Walter; Arndt, William F.; and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 2d ed., revised
and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich
and Frederick W. Danker.
1979.
Benner,
Allen R., and Smyth, Herbert W. Beginner's Greek Book.
American Book Co., 1906.
Blass,
Friedrich. Grammar of New Testament Greek. 2d ed., revised and
enlarged. Translated by Henry S.
Thackeray.
and
Blass,
Friedrich and Debrunner, Albert. A Greek Grammar
of the New
Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Translated and
revised by Robert W. Funk.
Press, 1961.
61
62
Bruce,
Alexander B. "The Synoptic Gospels." In vol. 1 of Expositor's
Greek Testament. Edited by W.
Robertson Nicoll.
Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1979.
Brugmann, Karl. A Comparative Grammar of the
Indo-Germanic Languages.
vol. 4. Translated by R. Seymour
Conway and W. H. D. Rouse.
Buttman, Philip. Greek Grammar.
Translated by Edward Robinson. New
Chamberlain,
William D. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament.
B. V., 1976.
Collinge, N. E. "Voice in the Mycenean Verb."
62 (1969-70): 91-95.
Crosby,
Nichols, Lee and Co., 1861.
Curtius, Georg. Elucidations of the Student's
Greek Grammar. Translated
by Evelyn Abbott.
_______.
The Greek Verb: Its Structure and Development. Translated
by Augustus S. Wilkins and Edwin B.
England.
Dana,
Harvey E. and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament.
Davis,
William H. Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New
Dictionary
of New Testament Theology. S.v. "Guard," by C.
Brown.
Dictionary
of New Testament Theology. S.v. "Prayer," by H. Schonweiss.
Dictionary
of New Testament Theology. S.v. "Presuppositions and
Theology
in the Greek New Testament," by
Di
Pietro, Robert J. Language Structures in Contrast.
Rowley: Newbury
House Publishers, 1971.
Erades, P. A. Points of Modern English Syntax:
Contributions to English
Studies. Edited by N. J. Robat with a Foreward by R. W.
Zandvoort.
Funk,
Robert W. A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek.
2d corrected ed., 3 vols.
63
Geden, Alfred A., and Moulton, William F., eds. A
Concordance to the
Greek Testament. 5th ed.
revised by Harold K. Moulton.
Gideon,
Virtus E. and Vaughan, Curtis. A Greek Grammar of
the New
Testament.
Gignac, Francis T. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of
the Roman and
Byzantine Periods. 2 vols. Milano: Instituto Editoriale
Cisalpino-La
Goliardico, 1981.
Gildersleeve, Basil L. "Stahl's
Syntax of the Greek Verb." American
Journal of Philology
29(1908):257-79.
________.
Syntax of Classical Greek. 2 pts.
Scribner's Sons, 1965.
Goetchius, Eugene V. The Language of the New
Testament.
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.
Goodwin,
William W. Greek Grammar. Revised by Charles B. Gulick.
Gould,
Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
According to St. Mark. ICC.
Edited by C. A. Briggs, et al.
Green,
Samuel. Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek New Testament.
Hale,
Clarence B. Let's Study Greek.
Hatch,
Edwin. Essays in Biblical Greek.
Press, 1889.
Hatch,
Edwin and Redpath, Henry A. A Concordance to the
Septuagint and
the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the
Apocryphal Books). 2 vols.
1897.
Hatzidakis, Georg N. Einleitung
in die Neugriechische
Grammatik. In
Bibliothek
Indogermanischer Grammatiken.
Bd. 5. Bearbeitet von
F. Bucheler,
et al.
und Hartel,
1892.
Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel
according to Mark. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975.
Hiebert, D.
Householder,
Fred W.; Kazazsis, Kostas; and Koutsoudas,
Andeas.
"Reference Grammar of Literary Dhimotiki." International Journal
of American Linguistics. 30 (April
1964): 1-188.
64
Howard,
Wilbert F.; Moulton, James H.; and Turner, Nigel. A Grammar of
New Testament Greek. 4 vols.
1908-76.
Huddilston, John H. Essentials of New Testament
Greek.
Macmillan Co., 1915.
Huther, J. Ed. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to
the General Epistles
of James, Peter, John, and Jude. In Meyer's
Commentary on the
New Testament. 3d ed. vol.
10. Translated by Paton J. Gloag,
et al. Funk and Wagnalls,
1884; reprint ed.
Publications, 1980.
Jannaris, Anthony N. An Historical Greek
Grammar.
and
Jay,
Eric G. New Testament Greek: An Introductory Grammar.
SPCK, 1958.
Jelf, William E. A Grammar of the Greek Language.
2d ed. 2 vols.
Johnstone, Robert. Lectures Exegetical and Practical on the Epistle of
James. Oliphant Anderson and
Ferrier, 1871; reprint ed.,
Joint
Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course. Reading Greek:
Grammar, Vocabulary and Exercises.
University Press, 1978.
Kennedy,
H. A. A. Sources of New Testament Greek: The Influence of the
Septuagint on the Vocabulary of
the New Testament.
T. and T. Clark, 1895.
Kuhner, Raphael. Grammar of the Greek Language,
for the Use of High
Schools and Colleges.
Translated by Bela B. Edwards and Samuel
H. Taylor.
Lampe,
G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon.
Press, 1961.
Lancelot,
Claude. A New Method of Learning the Greek Tongue. 2 vols.
Translated by Thomas Nugent.
Law,
Robert. The Tests of Life: A Study of
the First Epistle of St.
John. 3d ed.
Leddusire, Frank E. B. "A Comparative Study
of the Middle Voice in Koine
Greek and Reflexive Verbs in Old
Russian through Case Grammar
Description." Ph.D.
dissertation,
1972.
65
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistles
of St. Peter, St.
John, and St. Jude.
1966.
________.
The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel.
burg Publishing House, 1961.
Liddell,
Henry and Scott, Robert, compilers. A Greek-English Lexicon.
Revised and augmented throughout by
Henry Jonas with the assis-
tance of
Roderick McKenzie et al., with a supplement.
At the Clarendon Press, 1968.
Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners.
Macmillan Co., 1951.
Mandilaras, Basil G. The Verb in the Greek
Non-Literary Papyri.
Hellenic Ministry of Culture and
Sciences, 1973.
Mayor,
Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James. 3d ed.
Mayser, Edwin. Grammatik der
griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzeit.
2 bds. 3 teils.
Mc
Intosh, Roy S. Greek Forms and Syntax.
Humphrey, 1924.
Meyer,
Heinrich A. W. Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospels
of Mark and Luke, vol. 2. Translated by Robert E.
Wallis. In
Meyer's Commentary on the New
Testament. Revised and edited by
William P. Dickson.
Meyer-Myklestad, Johannes. An Advanced English Grammar for
Students and
Teachers.
Milligan,
George and Moulton, James H. The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament Illustrated from the
Papyri and Other Non-Literary
Sources. Reprinted.
Misra, Satya S. A
Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Greek, and Hittite.
Foreward
by Suniti K. Chatterji.
1968.
Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2d ed.
Moulton,
James H. An Introduction to the Study
of New Testament Greek.
5th ed. Revised by Henry G. Meecham.
1955.
Nunn,
Henry P. The Elements of New Testament Greek.
University Press, 1918.
66
________.
A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek.
University Press, 1912.
Oesterley, W. E. "The General Epistle of
James." In vol. 4 of Exposi-
tor's
Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll.
Reprinted
Palmer,
Leonard R. The Greek Language.
Plummer,
Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to
St. Matthew. 3d ed.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta.
2 vols.
Bibelanstalt,
1935.
Robertson,
Archibald T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical Research.
Ropes,
James H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of
St. James. ICC. Edited by C.
A. Briggs, et al.
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916.
Ruck, Carl A. P. Ancient Greek: A New Approach.
Press, 1968.
Semenov,
Anatol F. The Greek Language in Its Evolution.
Allen and
Shilleto, Richard. "On Greek Deponent Verbs
with Aorist in qhn." The
Journal of Philology.
7(1875):148-51.
Simcox, William H. The Language of the New
Testament. Reprint ed.
Simonson,
Gustave. A Greek Grammar, Accidence.
and
Smith,
Charles R. Tongues in Biblical Perspective.
Books, 1972.
Smith,
David. "The Epistles of John." In vol. 5 of Expositor's Greek
Testament. Edited by W.
Robertson Nicoll. Reprint ed. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1979.
Smyth,
Herbert W. Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing.
Sonnenschein, Edward A. A Greek
Grammar.
Trubner
and Co., 1914.
Sophocles,
Evangelinus A. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine
Periods. 2 vols.
n.d.
67
Stahl,
Johann M. Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums
der
klassischen Zeit.
buchhandlung,
1907.
Steyer, Gottfried. Satzlehredes
neutestamentlichen Griechisch.
F. Ullman
KG, 1972.
Story,
Cullen T. K. and Story, J. Lyle. Greek to Me: Learning New
Testament Greek through Memory
Visualization.
Harper and Row, 1979.
Strong,
Herbert. Introduction to the History of Language.
Longmans, Green, and Co., 1891.
Svartvik, Jan. On Voice in the English Verb.
Mouton and Co., 1966.
Tasker, R. V. G. The General Epistle of James.
TNTC. Edited by R. V. G.
Tasker.
Taylor,
Vincent. The Gospel according to St. Mark. 2d ed.
Macmillan and Co., 1966.
Thackeray,
Henry St. J. A Grammar of the Old
Testament in Greek accord-
ing
to the Septuagint.
1909.
Thayer,
Joseph. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1975.
Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament. S.v.
"ai]te<w," by Gustav
Stahlin.
Thompson,
F. E. A Syntax of Attic Greek.
Thompson,
John. A Greek Grammar, Accidence and Syntax for Schools and
Colleges.
Thrax, Dionysius. Grammatici
Graeci. vol. 1. Lipsiae: In Aedibus
B. G. Teubneri,
1838; reprint ed.,
Verlagsbuchhandlung
Hildescheinz, 1965.
Turner,
Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament.
T. and T. Clark, 1965.
Valpy, Richard. The Elements of Greek Grammar.
1837.
Veitch, William. Greek Verbs, Irregular and
Defective.
Clarendon Press, 1879.
68
Walther,
James A. New Testament Greek Workbook: An Inductive Study of
the Complete Text of the Gospel
of John.
of
Warburton,
Irene P. "On the Verb in Modern Greek." Ph.D. dissertation,
Wenham,
John W. The Elements of New Testament Greek.
sity
Press, 1965.
Werner,
Kegan,
Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1919.
Westcott,
Brooke F. The Epistle to the Hebrews.
Co., n.d.;
reprint ed.,
Winer, George B. A
Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament. 7th ed.
Enlarged and improved by Gottlieb Lunemann.
Draper, 1869.
Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek.
Adapted from the 4th Latin ed. by
Joseph Smith.
Please
send any errors discovered to: Ted
Hildebrandt at
ted.hildebrandt@gordon.edu