[B-Greek] Koine Middle Voice: Myths and Clarifications (LONG)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 5 16:31:53 EDT 2003


In an article entitled, "How Do We Use the Biblical Languages? Some
Reflections on Synchronic and Diachronic Methodology in Semantics, Grammar,
and Exegesis with an Excursus on EKKLHSIA" (accessible as a PDF file at
http://purl.oclc.org/NT_Resources/, Rod Decker offers some remarks about
ways in which 1 Cor 13:8 has been interpreted (text: hH AGAPH OUDEPOTE
PIPTEI; EITE DE PROFHTEIAI, KATARGHQHSONTAI; EITE GLWSSAI, PAUSONTAI; EITE
GNWSIS, KATARGHQHSETAI.). Noting in particular with regard to PAUSONTAI
that some interpreters have called attention to the fact that PAUSONTAI is
future middle and have argued that, since it is middle, it means that the
tongues will cease of their own accord. Rod protests that this is
attributing to the voice of the verb an illegitimate semantic force. I
quite agree with Rod and might even go further and insist that all three
verbs in this verse, KATARGHQHSETAI, PAUSONTAI, and KATARGHQHSETAI, are
middle-passive and essentially intransitive in sense. It is not stated or
implied that prophecies and Gnosis will be made by some power to cease or
that tongues will cease "of their own accord." Rather, the implication of
the voice of these verbs is simply that these activities/processes will
atrophy when they have no function to perform.

Now it may be that I have sharpened the point regarding the sense of these
verb-forms beyond what Rod may have intended, but I do agree with what he
says about the wrongness of any emphasis upon a "voluntary" decision on the
part of GLWSSAI to bring themselves to a halt.

Nevertheless, in an article the basic thrust of which I applaud
wholeheartedly, I was disturbed to read Rod's rationale for making this
judgment regarding PAUSONTAI in 1 Cor 13:8. His focus in the article
generally is on diachronic and synchronic factors involved in exegesis of
the Biblical, specifically the NT text and he offers several well-founded
and very useful comments about how these aspects may be used and abused
with regard to lexicology and grammatical analysis. But with regard to the
middle voice he points to a not uncommon view of how the function of the
middle voice has supposedly changed between classical Attic usage and NT
Koine usage. Rod cites Smyth's grammar (§§1713-1728), ending with Smyth's
statement, "As contrasted with the active, the middle lays stress on the
conscious activity, bodily or mental participation, of the agent." Rod
notes, "Such usage is too frequently injected into the Greek of the NT, not
realizing that this distinctive use of the middle is a classical feature
that has nearly disappeared in the later koine stages of the language." He
cites Moule as saying that "the distinction between the active and middle
voices 'has become blurred by the NT period.'"

In my opinion there is a serious misunderstanding of the middle voice both
regarding its essential nature, its historical development in the course of
the Greek language, and its usage both in classical Attic and in Koine.
Much of the confusion and misunderstanding arises from what can only be
called the "myth" of "deponency"--the notion that a great number of Greek
verbs having no active-voice forms are somehow abnormal; it is supposed
that the "deponent" verbs do not really function semantically in the middle
voice even though they have middle-voice forms and that such verbs must be
memorized simply as pesky and annoying "irregular" verbs. Calling them
"deponents" absolves the teacher and the student from coming to terms with
what the function of the middle voice really is. Moreover, the middle voice
is commonly taught and learned as a sort of half-way house between a
polarity of active and passive categories; the doctrine being
simplistically expressed thus: "In the active voice the subject acts upon
the object; in the passive voice the subject is acted upon by another; in
the middle voice the subject acts upon him/herself or in his/her own
behalf."

In the past five years I have been analyzing Greek texts using middle and
passive forms and thinking and researching ways in which these forms
function and how they have developed and changed in the course of
development of the Greek language. While I can't say that the dust has
settled finally and all the questions are fully resolved in my mind, I have
published on my web site as of last fall a revised and documented
formulation of my understanding of Greek voice. That document is accessible
as a PDF file at either of two sites:

	http:www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf
	http:www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/docs/NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf

What's wrong with the simplistic formulation of the "doctrine" of voice
stated two paragraphs above is that the real polarity is not between active
and passive with the middle as a sort of half-way house between active and
passive; rather the real polarity is between a simple verb-form that may be
active, may be intransitive or may even, in some instances, bear a passive
sense--and an alternative verb-form indicate an experience the subject is
undergoing or involved in: that is the "middle-passive"--and it may bear,
depending upon contextual circumstances, (a) a sense that is intransitive
or (b) a sense that is indicative of action or process voluntarily
undertaken or undergone by the subject of the verb, which is to say, a
sense that is "middle" or "passive" in the standard sense. The phrase
NIPTEI TON PAIDA conveys an active sense, "washes the child," while the
phrase NIPTETAI hO PAIS conveys the notion that the child is undergoing a
washing, whether that washing is self-administered or administered by
another. Unless an agent construction is added--or something else in the
context makes it clear (e.g. hUPO TOU MHTROS), one cannot be sure whether
the Greek means to tell us that the child is giving himself a bath or a
face-wash or whether it is being washed by somebody else. That is why the
verb-form and its pattern of conjugation are termed "middle-passive": it is
open to or subject to interpretation as passive or middle or even
intransitive semantically. An important point here, however, is that a
middle-voice form may be used regardless of whether the subject of the verb
is undergoing the action or experience indicated by the verb voluntarily or
not. Often enough we will want to translate such an expression in the
"middle-passive" as an intransitive verb (e.g. POREUETAI, ESTAI) or even as
an impersonal verb (e.g. ENDECETAI). A form such as APWLETO without
contextual indicators may indicate that the subject of the verb fell into
deep water and, since he couldn't swim, drowned, or that the subject of the
verb was pushed off of a cliff and fell to his doom. In either case the
verb-form APWLETO is "middle-passive" and the subject "perished." If we add
something like hUPO TWN ECQRWN then we may want to interpret the form
APWLETO as passive and translate the phrase something like, "he was
destroyed by his foes."

Now the point that I really am chiefly concerned with here is that the
nature and semantic meaning of the middle-passive as I have just described
it is not something that altered during the period of time elapsing between
the heyday of classical Attic (5th & 4th centuries B.C.) and the prevalent
employment of the Koine as a medium of spoken and written communication
(e.g., era of composition of the GNT, 1st century A.D.). And yet it is
sometimes suggested that, as Moule is cited by Rod Decker above, "the
distinction between the active and middle voices 'has become blurred by the
NT period.'" It is even suggested that Matthew has occasionally changed
middle forms found in Mark to active verb forms. When suggesting as much in
a footnote, Rod rightly notes that there are many factors potentially at
work here, quite apart from the fact that many may doubt that Matthew made
use of a pre-existing text of Mark when he composed his own gospel--to
which I would add that even if he did, the difference of a decade or two
would hardly have accounted for a profound difference in usage or active-
and middle-voice verb forms by the two writers. An assertion such as this
really needs to be tested in terms of evidence of general practice of the
two evangelists regarding usage of the active- and middle-voice forms.
Here, set forth as briefly as I could manage, are the facts:

Accordance search shows 324 total verb forms in Mark's gospel marked as
middle voice, listed under 83 lemmas, of which 34 are listed as active,
several of them questionably, inasmuch as some verbs are not found at all
in the active in the GNT: FOBEW, for instance, means "terrify"; in the GNT
we find only FOBOUMAI, "fear."

This list includes all those verbs whose lemmas are shown in the fuller
list of verbs that have middle-voice forms in Mark that follows upon the
listing and annotation of the 34 active lemmas immediately following. 49 of
the 83 lemmas are, of course, so-called "deponent" verbs, which means
nothing else but that they are fundamentally middle in nature and have no
active-voice forms at all.

The following verbs have active lemmas and show the following middle-voice
forms as follows in Mark's gospel:
01. AITEW  (Mt's usage doesn't differ significantly from Mk's) Mk: A=3,M=6;
Mt A=9,M=5;
02. ANAPAUW (When Mt uses this verb in the active, it is causative, "I will
give you rest"; Mk & Mt both use middle in sense "take rest") Mk: A=0,M=2;
Mt: A=1,M=1;
03. ANISTHMI (future in the middle voice is standard for this verb in the
intransitive sense; difference btw/ A & M is clearly observed in both Mk &
Mt; Mk: A=15,M=2; Mt A=3,M=1;
04. APOLAMBANW Mk: A=0,M=1; APOLAMBANW is not found in Matthew;
05. APOLLUMI (The difference in meaning btw/ active & middle is clearly
observed in both Mk & Mt) Mk A=8,M=2; Mt A=13,M=6;
06. APOTASSW Mk: A=0,M=1, APOTASSW is not found in Matthew;
07. hAPTW (Although the active is found elsewhere in the GNT, only the
middle of this verb is used by Mk and Mt): Mk A=0,M=11; Mt A=0,M=9;
08. ARCW (there's a clear distinction between "rule" and "begin" and both
Mk and Mt recognize it): Mk: A=1,M=26; Mt: A=0,M=13;
09. BAPTIZW  (except in Mk 7:4, where the middle is used for 'wash
oneself", the MP forms in Mk are all passive in meaning. Mt has no parallel
to Mk 7:4): Mk: A=5,MP=7; Mt A=3,MP=4;
10. GINWSKW (future is regularly middle): Mk: A=11,M=1; Mt (no futures):
A=18,MP2;
11. DIAMERIZW  (Middle of this verb used in same sense by both Mk & Mt):
Mk: A=0,M=1; Mt: A=0,M=1;
12. DIASTELLW (Verb should probably be lemmatized as middle, it is only
used in the middle in the GNT): Mk: A=0,M=5; Mt: A=0,M=1;
13. EIMI (The future, of course was always middle; the imperfect is
developing more middle forms in the Koine, and ultimately the whole verb
shifts into the middle voice.) Mk: A=173,M=19; Mt: A=235,M=55;
14. EKDIDWMI (this verb is used only in the middle voice by both Mk & Mt):
Mk: A=0,M=1; Mt: A=0,M=2;
15. EMBAPTW  (in Mt the verb is used w/ object CEIR, in Mk it is a true
middle): Mk: A=0,M=1; Mt: A=1,M=0;
16. ENDUW  (Both Mk & Mt show a clear distinction between dressing another
and dressing onself): Mk A=0,M=2; Mt A=1,M=2;
17. EXISTHMI (the future is regularly middle); Mk A=2 (the forms EXESTH and
EXESTHSAN are not really "active" but intransitive),M=2; Mt: A=0,M=1;
18. EXOMOLOGEW (should perhaps be lemmatized as middle; it appears in the
GNT only once in active):Mk: A=0,M=1; Mt: A=0,M=2;
19. EPANISTHMI (future is middle): Mk: A=0,M=1; Mt: A=0,M=1;
20. ECW  EIS TAS ECOMENAS KWMOPOLEIS, a construction radically altered in
Matthew's formulation; the distinct sense of the middle "be adjacent"
appears 5x in the GNT); Mk: A=69,M=1; Mt:A=74,M=0;
21. QERMAINW Mk: A=0,M=2; QERMAINW is not found in Matthew (The verb is of
Peter keeping warm by fire, Mt doesn't mention this at all);
22. hIMATIZW  Mk:A=0,M=1; hIMATIZW is not found in Mt.;
23. KULIW Mk: A=0,M=1; KULIW is not found in Matthew;
24. LAMBANW (future tense is middle); Mk: A=19,M=1; Mt: A=48,M=5;
25. MHKUNW Mk: A=0,M=1 MHKUNHTAI;  MHKUNW is not found in Matthew;
26. NIPTW  1 (the sense "wash oneself" is clear in both Mk and Mt); Mk:
A=0,M=1; Mt: A=0,M=2;
27. hORAW  (future is middle; passive has sense "appear"); Mk: A=3,M=3,P=1;
Mt: A=5,M=7,P=1;
28. PERIBALLW Mk: A=0,M=2; Mt: A=3,M=2  (It should be noted that Mt's
distinction btw/ A & M is precise: "clothe another" vs. "clothe oneself") 
29. PERIBLEPW  Mk: A=0,M=6; PERIBLEPW is not found in Matthew ( instead:
EPAIRW TOUS OFQALMOUS)
30. PINW (future tense is middle); Mk: A=7,M=1; Mt: A=15,M=1;
31. PROSLAMBANW Mk: A=0,M=1; Mt: A=0,M=1;
32. SPAW Mk: A=0,M= 1; SPAW is not found in Matthew ;         
33. hUPODEW Mk: A=0,M=1; hUPODEW is not found in Matthew; but he uses MHDE
hUPODHMATA where Mk has hUPODEDEMENOUS SANDALIA)
34.  FOBEW (This verb is always middle in sense "fear"; active meant
"rout"); Mk: A=0,MP=12; Mt: A=0,MP=18;
34. FULASSW (BDAG s.v. 5a,b notes that both active and middle usage in
sense of "observe a law or custom" were customary); Mk A=0,M=1; Mt A=1,M=0.

My conclusion from this examination is that there are indeed some
differences between the usage of Mark and Matthew with regard to the active
and middle forms, but that (a) the evidence is quite sufficient to
demonstrate that Matthew knew and observed the difference between usage of
active and middle-passive morphoparadigms, and (b) Matthew understood as
well as did Mark which verbs regularly used a middle in the future and both
readily employed the verbs which have no active morphoparadigms (the
so-called "deponents").
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list