MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICE

B. Ward Powers bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Tue Oct 23 23:38:33 EDT 2001


Carl has been explaining to us his understanding of middle and passive 
voice in Greek, and in particular the significance of the -QH- morph in a 
verb. I would like to explain another (and more traditional) way of 
understanding voice in Greek.

First of all, what IS voice? The term "voice" refers to how a person or 
thing  relates to the action of the verb. To state this in its simplest form:

ACTIVE: I was the one who did it to him. "I saw the Lord." I.e., in the 
active the subject performs the action of the verb, and it normally has or 
implies an object of the action described.

MIDDLE: I was the one who did it, and no one else was involved. I.e., I did 
something TO myself, or BY myself. Normally intransitive (without an 
object, or the object is oneself).
E.g., the one who has bathed [that is, bathed himself] (John 13:10) hO 
LELOUMENOS;
Judas hanged himself (Matthew 27:5), APEGXATO.

PASSIVE: I had the action done to me by something or someone else. E.g.,
The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) OU DUNATAI LUQHNAI hH GRAFH;
[the] heavens will be dissolved (2 Peter 3:12) OURANOI LUQHSONTAI

These distinctions are not always consistently carried out in the actual 
functioning of the language. Thus, in the Lord's command to Peter (Acts 
10:13), "Rise, Peter, kill and eat", there is no expressed object for "kill 
and eat", but obviously these verbs CAN have an expressed object, and an 
object of the action is implied even when not expressed: if you kill and 
eat, you kill and eat SOMETHING. So in the verse these verbs are active. On 
the other hand, "rise" is something you just do yourself: it is 
intransitive. So it would be a good candidate for being middle. In the 
event, all three verbs in this sentence are aorist active (the first is a 
participle form, the other two are imperatives): ANASTAS, PETRE, QUSON KAI 
FAGE.

And another quirk is that the future form of "eat" is middle, FAGOMAI, 
notwithstanding that it is transitive, taking an object: hOSTIS FAGETAI 
ARTON (Luke 14:15); KAI FAGETAI TAS SARKAS hUMWN (James 5:3). Altogether, 
fourteen verbs with active sense take middle forms in their future (e.g., 
LAMBANW, PINW, TIKTW).

Then the intransitive verb "come", ERCOMAI, has a middle suppletive in the 
future, ELEUSOMAI - but an active suppletive in the aorist, HLQON.

And GINOMAI is middle in form in the present, future, and aorist - but 
active in form in its perfect, GEGONA.

The SECOND issue is, then, How do you describe what is happening in a 
language in these circumstances?

My contention, from a linguistic perspective, is: You identify the main 
patterns in the language, and then you seek to recognize and characterize 
departures from these patterns. These "departures" may be of a kind which 
can be described by a subordinate rule. [Example: the standard morph for 
the future is the addition of sigma after the verb root (in what I would 
identify as Slot Six of the verb's nine morph slots); but after a liquid 
this future morph is not sigma but epsilon, which then contracts with a 
following vowel in accordance with the rules of contraction.] Or, these 
departures may be of an unpredictable kind: in which case they are 
recognized as being irregular.

In carrying out this process, one finds first of all a place where the 
differentiation of form and meaning is clearest. In Greek, this is in the 
aorist. Here one sees a differentiation between the paradigms of ELUSAMHN 
and ELUQHN, which can be correlated respectively with middle and passive 
meanings. Next, one can find a similar distinction of form in the future: 
the paradigm LUSOMAI is middle, while that of LUQHSOMAI is passive. Thus 
the morph -QH-, which is lengthened from -QE-. is the indicator of passive, 
where a separate set of forms is available for the middle. That is, in the 
future and aorist systems. (The lengthened -QH- occurs in the indicative, 
imperative and infinitive, and the unlengthened -QE- in the subjunctive 
[where it contracts], the optative and the participle.)

Thus forms of the future and aorist tenses indicate morphologically whether 
they are middle or passive.

But there are four subsystems of the Greek verb, the other two being the 
present (with the imperfect) and the perfect (with the pluperfect). The 
Greek language did not invent separate passive forms for these two 
subsystems. Instead, when Greek wants a passive meaning in the present or 
perfect tenses, the MIDDLE forms will be found used: the context must 
indicate which voice is intended.

CONCLUSION: the starting point for ascribing meaning is: Whenever you 
encounter a future or aorist form in the middle or passive, you take it to 
have middle or passive meaning respectively, because both differentiated 
voice forms (i.e., middle and passive) are available for use. However, 
whenever you encounter a middle FORM of the present (+imperfect) or perfect 
(+pluperfect) - which you recognize as a middle form by its containing the 
middle indicator morphs - you recognize that its MEANING could be either 
middle or passive, because no differentiated passive forms were available 
in the language.

The language provides these basic indicators. It is a great shame, 
pedagogically, not to recognize and use them as the starting point.

But: how then does one deal with the undeniable fact that "it ain't 
necessarily so"? Which leads us to:

THIRDLY, HANDLING THE EXCEPTIONS

Every known language has language rules - and exceptions to these rules. 
The existence of the exceptions does not nullify the rules. The rules 
provide the basic pattern for most forms in that language, and the 
foundation on the basis of which you can identify, and handle, the exceptions.

One factor in language is that, as Carl has pointed out, language is always 
in the process of changing.


>Iver, I think that the language is always in a process of change from older
>forms and idioms to newer forms and idioms; while that's happening, there
>are concurrent forms and idioms performing the same functions. One common 
>one: there are "second" aorists that are conjugated partly with O/E 
>endings and partly with -A- endings Mt 12:2 has EIPAN but 12:24 has
>EIPON--alternative 3 pl. forms with the same subject (hOI FARISAIOI).


The example which Carl gives is indicative of a general (but gradual and 
partial) transition in the language, in which second and third aorist verbs 
were migrating some of their forms to first conjugation forms, 
characterized by -SA- or -A- in the aorist.

Carl goes on to say:


>There are quite a few verbs in NT Koine that still show aorist and future 
>middles with -MAI- forms, but far more that show -QH- forms in the aorist 
>and future.


Carl's contention is that -QH- forms are best regarded as middle, though 
they can correlate with passive meaning:


>hISTHMI/hISTAMAI is an interesting example showing concurrent
>forms: of course the active means "cause to stand" and so we have aorist
>and future forms in ESTHSA and STHSW, but in the intransitive sense we 
>have the more common ESTHN and the newer form ESTAQHN; the latter CAN be 
>passive but it isn't necessarily so. For example:
>
>Mt 2:9 hO ASTHR ... ELQWN ESTAQH EPANW hOU HN TO PAIDION (ESTAQH 
>intransitive?)
>Mt 27:11 hO DE IHSOUS ESTAQH EMPROSQEN TOU hHGEMONOS (ESTAQH perhaps passive?)
>Lk 24:3;6 ... AUTOS ESTH EN MESWi AUTWN ... (ESTH clearly intransitive)


One could argue that in the first example (Mt 2:9) there is a definite 
element of the passive: the star was "stood" or "positioned" (by the 
workings of the providence of God) over where the child was. In Mt 27:11 it 
could well be that Jesus "was stood" (i.e., was positioned) before the 
governor (by the guard). Luke 24:36 does not involve the use of a formal 
passive form.

However, I acknowledge that passive forms occur which have active or middle 
(and not passive) meaning; see below.

There is no "one right way" of describing what is found in a language - all 
we can aim for is what you might call the "best fit" of a description. But 
I definitely do not believe that Carl's approach to middle and passive is 
the best way of approaching what we find in Greek, and teaching it.

Rather, there is much more to be said for the following approach to the 
description of voice:

1. Greek has active, middle, and passive voice. In the future and aorist 
subsystems of the Greek verb, these are fully differentiated 
morphologically (i.e., by the morph -QH- or -QE- for the passive). In the 
present and perfect subsystems, the middle forms can be used with either 
middle or passive meaning, and the choice of meaning must be made on the 
basis of context. Example: in John 13:10 the perfect participle LELOUMENOS 
refers to the one who has bathed himself (middle meaning); whereas in 
Hebrews 10:22 this perfect participle (here, plural) means "those who have 
been bathed" (passive meaning).

2. Middle forms can occur with active meaning: sometimes, for a range of 
tenses for a particular verb, sometimes, just in the future tense. These 
are unpredictable in the sense that you cannot tell in advance, either from 
meaning or from the phonemes of a word, that this will be the case for a 
particular verb: we only know it occurs for a given verb from observing it. 
So that we can describe and talk about them, these forms can be termed 
"deponents" or "deponent middles". (The term is just a handle for a 
phenomenon; nothing more.)

3. Similarly, passive forms (i.e., forms containing the passive morph 
-QH/QE-) can occur which have active meaning. Some verbs occur with both 
middle and passive forms with active meaning; the most common example is 
APOKRINOMAI, "answer" or "respond". These can be referred to as "passive 
deponents". Passive forms can occur with middle sense: e.g., EGERQEIS in 
EGERQEIS PARALABE TO PAIDION, "Rise up and take the child" (Matthew 2:13), 
followed by EGERQEIS PARELABEN (v.14).

4. The occurrence of verb forms which morphologically are of one voice but 
in a given context (or even, all their contexts) have the meaning of a 
different voice, does not nullify the concept of the distinction or 
differentiation of voice. One can describe these as "deponent" or 
"irregular" usages of a voice form; the basic concept remains, and applies 
in the vast majority of instances of the vast majority of verbs. This 
includes understanding -QH/QE- as indicating passive in verbs forms where 
it occurs, unless the context gives a clear contra-indication.

Regards,

Ward



                                http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers        Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255
259A Trafalgar Street          Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255
PETERSHAM  NSW  2049      email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
AUSTRALIA.                         Director, Tyndale College




More information about the B-Greek mailing list