Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

                         for the degree of Master of Theology in

                                  Grace Theological Seminary

                                             May 1983

                     Digitized by Ted Hildebrandt, Gordon College, 2006

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 aTreKcSuo6pcvos

presents exegetical difficulties (Col 2:15). Is the participle merely

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 (London: J. Nourse, 1746;

reprinted; Menston, England: Scolar Press, 1972), p. 236.

          ² Jan Svartvik, On Voice in the English Verb (Hague: Mouton and

Co., 1966), p. 1. This popularity in English is largely due to the

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 Harvey E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of  the

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 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter's

Universitatbuchhandlung, 1907), p. 42.

          ² For consistency and clarity, see Herbert W. Smyth, Greek 

Grammar, rev. Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

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,

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), p. 100. These examples,

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 Co. B.V., 1976), pp. 111-12. For forceful argumentation concerning

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 St. John's Gospel,

(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 (New York:

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 (London:

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, Indiana University, 1966), p. 68.

          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 (Oxford:

At the Clarendon Press, 1889), pp. 2-8.

          ⁵ Dionysius Thrax, Grammatici Graeci, vol. 1 (Lipsiae: In

Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1838; reprint ed., Stuttgart: Georg Olms

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 (London: John Murray,

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 (London: Faber and

Faber, 1931), p. 136; Edward A. Sonnenschein, A Greek Grammar (London:

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 (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1965), pp. 22-23. For the views of Anthon,

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

Vaughan observe that the middle voice at times may call special attention

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 (New York:

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, (Minneapolis:

Augsburg Publishing House, 1966), p. 277. However, see BAGD, p. 683. On

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 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1869; reprint

ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 397. The example is

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, Reading 

Greek: Grammar, Vocabulary and Exercises (Cambridge: Cambridge

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 (Edinburgh: T. and T.

Clark, 1978), pp. 34-38.

                                                                                                                      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